Delhi District Court
Smt. Kusum vs Amit Joshi (Husband) on 24 August, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02 (NORTH EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
CR No.10/2012
Smt. Kusum, W/o Sh. Amit Joshi
D/o Late Chottey Lal Propkari,
R/o H. No.708, Puri Gali No.2,
Maujpur, Delhi - 110053. .....Revisionist.
Versus
Amit Joshi (Husband)
S/o Late Rajender Joshi
R/o House No.107, Gali No.4,
Khanna Nagar, Jawalpur,
Distt. Haridwar, Uttrakhand. .....Respondent.
J U D G M E N T
1. Aggrieved by the order on interim maintenance dated 20.04.2012 passed by Ld. MM/KKD/Delhi in a complaint case bearing CC No.V11/09 PS Seelampur titled as Smt. Kusum Vs. Amit Joshi etc., whereby the respondent no.1 (respondent herein) was directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/ per month towards the interim maintenance to the petitioner (revisionist herein) from the date of filing of aforesaid petition till the disposal of the case, the revisionist has preferred the present revision petition on 01.08.2012 for setting aside the impugned order. Along with the petition, the petitioner has also preferred an application of section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the instant revision petition.
2. After service of notice of the petition, the Respondent made his Smt. Kusum Vs. Amit Joshi (CR No. 10/12) Page No. 1 of pages 5 appearance through his counsel.
3. Before coming to the main petition, the application for condonation of delay is to be considered first. In the said application, the petitioner is praying for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition on the ground that the revisionist came to know that the interim maintenance has been fixed for Rs.2,500/ per month by the Ld. Trial Court on dated 20.04.2012 and the revisionist applied for the certified copy on 10.05.2012 being out of station through her counsel and certified copy of the same was received on 26.05.2012. The revisionist was out of station as her near relative was seriously ill and there was no one to take care of her relative and the revisionist reached Delhi on 30.07.2012 and as such the revisionist could not file the revision petition within the stipulated period due to the above stated bonafide reason.
4. I find that the reasons stated by the petitioner in support of his application are just and reasonable and as such I hereby condone the delay occurred till filing the instant revision petition.
5. Now, let us come to the Revision petition.
6. The petitioner is impugning the impugned order on the following grounds:
(i). The impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures and as such the same is liable to be set aside.
(ii). Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant is jobless and she is blessed with a male child, who is of five years of age and have attained the age of study in school, which requires atleast Rs.1500/ per month and besides this his maintenance requires Rs.1,000/ per month and the complainant only requires atleast Rs.2,500/ per Smt. Kusum Vs. Amit Joshi (CR No. 10/12) Page No. 2 of pages 5 month for maintaining herself and her minor child.
(iii). Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent has only been claiming the company of the revisionist just to harass her and her minor child.
(iv). Ld. Trial Court also miserably failed to appreciate that the respondent is a man of means and is employed in a reputed firm namely Anchor Electrical Private Limited as Electrician and earning more than Rs.9,000/ per month. Besides this the respondent has income from immovable assets which is upto the tune of Rs.10,000/ per month as the respondent is the owner of some properties in the locality of his residence and getting income from those properties in the nature of rent. Besides this the respondent is a money lender and use to lend money on interest basis.
(v). Ld. Trial Court again failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent intentionally and deliberately deserted the revisionist for his ulterior and malafide motives by throwing the complainant and her minor child from her matrimonial home, hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
(vi). Ld. Trial Court has appreciated and presumed the fact in regard of the earning of the respondent as Rs.6,137/ per month and thereafter, in a very harsh manner and against the principle of equity has directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,500/ per month to the revisionist without taking into consideration, the other facts and circumstances of the case.
7. Having heard the rival submissions of both the sides and carefully perusing the entire material placed before me including the reply of petition, ground taken in the petition as well as case laws referred, I have come to the considered opinion that the revision petition as filed by the revisionist is devoid of merits as there is no material irregularity or illegality in the impugned order. A revisional Smt. Kusum Vs. Amit Joshi (CR No. 10/12) Page No. 3 of pages 5 court ought not to have entered into a scrutiny of the finding recorded by the Magistrate that the appellant was a married wife of the respondent, before allowing an application determining maintenance as it is well settled that the revisional court can interfere only if there is any illegality in the order or there it any material irregularity in the procedure or there is an error of jurisdiction.
In Suresh Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand reported as (2006) 1 AIR Jhar R 153 it has been held, "in a case where the learned Magistrate has granted maintenance holding that the wife had been neglected and the wife was entitled to maintenance, the scope of interference by the Revisional Court is very limited. The Revisional Court would not substitute its own finding and upset the maintenance order recorded by the Magistrate."
In Santosh Vs. Naresh Pal reported as (1998) 8 SCC 447 it has been held, "in a revision against the maintenance order passed in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C, the Revisional Court has no power to reassess evidence and substitute its own findings............"
Thus, the ratio decidendi which emerges out of a catena of authorities on the efficacy and value of the order passed by the Magistrate while determining maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C is that it should not be disturbed while exercising revisional jurisdiction.
In view of aforesaid, the revision petition as filed by the revisionist deserves dismissal and same stands dismissed accordingly.
8. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court/Successor Court for information.
9. Parties are directed to appear before the concerned court on Smt. Kusum Vs. Amit Joshi (CR No. 10/12) Page No. 4 of pages 5 14.09.2012.
10. The revision file be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(Announced in the open (RAKESH KUMAR)
court today on 24.08.2012) ASJ02 (NORTH EAST)
KKD COURTS : DELHI
Smt. Kusum Vs. Amit Joshi (CR No. 10/12) Page No. 5 of pages 5