Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Yadav vs Smt. Pushpa @ Kiran Yadav on 3 May, 2017
Author: S.A. Dharmadhikari
Bench: S.A. Dharmadhikari
1
M.Cr.C. No. 705/2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
DB: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU & Hon'ble MR.
JUSTICE S.A. DHARMADHIKARI
M.Cr.C. No. 705/2017
Manoj Yadav
Vs
Smt. Pushpa @ Kiran Yadav
Whether reportable :- Yes /No
_______________________________________________
For petitioner : Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for
the petitioner.
For Respondents : Shri P.C. Chandil, learned counsel
for the respondent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Delivered on this Day of 3rd May, 2017) Per S.A. Dharmadhikari,J.
1. In this petition under Section 482 read with Section 362 of the Cr.P.C, the petitioner is seeking correction/ clarification in the order dated 23/01/2009 passed in Criminal Revision No. 12/2008 to the limited extent so far as the payment of interest is concerned.
2. Earlier, this Court vide order dated 23/01/2009 passed in Criminal Revision No. 12/2008 allowed the revision and enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 4,000/-. The said revision was filed by the respondent herein. While allowing the revision, this Court passed 2 M.Cr.C. No. 705/2017 following order :-
" After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of the view that looking to the status of the parties the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Trial Court as Rs. 1,500/- in the proceedings U/S 125 Cr.P.C and Rs. 1200/- in the proceedings of divorce appears to be on lower side. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case the amount of maintenance is enhanced to Rs. 4,000/- per month. This amount of maintenance shall be payable w.e.f. 1st of January, 2009. This amount shall also include the amount of maintenance which was awarded by the Family Court in matrimonial proceedings. To avoid the inconvenience it is directed that petitioner shall open a bank account and shall submit full particulars through her counsel to the counsel of the respondent and the amount of maintenance shall be deposited by the respondent in the bank account so that petitioner should get the amount as and when required. In case of default the respondent shall be further liable to pay interest on the defaulted amount @ 12% per month.
With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. A copy of this order be placed in the record of Cr.R. No. 26/09".
3. From bare perusal of the order, it can be seen that this Court directed that in case of default the respondent (petitioner herein) shall be further liable to pay interest on the defaulted amount at the rate of 12% per month.
4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had filed M.Cr.C. 3 M.Cr.C. No. 705/2017 8654/2015 seeking clarification with regard to payment of interest on the ground of typographical mistake/inadvertent error. The said petition was finally decided on 16/08/2016. While disposing of the petition this Court passed the following order (Annxure P-2):
" From perusal of the aforesaid order, it is evident that the Supreme Court has dealt with the matter on merits and it was open to the applicant to assail the order dated 23.1.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Criminal Revision No.12/2008, insofar as it pertains to grant of interest. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Needless to state that the applicant would be at liberty to approach the Supreme Court for redressal of his grievance if any.
Accordingly, the application is disposed of".
5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 19804/2016 which was disposed of vide order dated 07/12/2016. The order is reproduced below :-
" As contended by learned counsel for the petitioner it is possible that the rate of interest imposed by the High Court, i.e. , 12% per month may be an inadvertent error or may be typographical error.
The High Court has rejected the petitioner's application previously under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( for short, " the Cr.P.C."). However, we consider it appropriate in the interest of justice to 4 M.Cr.C. No. 705/2017 allow the petitioner to bring to the notice of the High Court that rate of interest at 12% per month imposed by that Court is inadvertent and as a result of a typographical error.
We accordingly, permit the petitioner to move such an application before the High Court under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. The High Court shall consider the entire issue afresh. If such an application is filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks' from today, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner till then.
The special leave petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions".
6. In view of the liberty granted by the Apex Court, petitioner has again moved this Court by filing the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C seeking modification/correction in the order dated 23/01/2009 passed in Criminal Revision No. 12/2008.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is purely a typographical mistake/ inadvertent mistake crept in while directing the payment of interest. The same ought to have been typed as " 12% per annum instead of 12% per month.
8. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent on being asked as to whether interest at the rate of 12% per month can be granted, responds in negative but at the same time contended that this Court has wide powers to award interest @ much higher that the prevailing bank rate.
9. After hearing both the parties, this Court is of the opinion that no prudent person can grant interest at the rate 5 M.Cr.C. No. 705/2017 of 12% per month particularly when normal Bank rate is around 12% per annum. Even the RBI guidelines do not permit grant of interest @ 12% per month. It appears that it is nothing but a typographical error which has crept in at the time of typing of the order. The order directing the payment of interest at the rate of 12% per month is modified to that of 12% per annum. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. This order be read conjointly with the order dated 23/01/2009 passed in Criminal Revision No. 12/2008.
The copy of the order be kept in the file of M.Cr.C. No. 12/2008.
(Sheel Nagu) (S.A. DHARMADHIKARI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Prachi*