Delhi District Court
Ramu Chauhan vs Smt. Bimla on 6 September, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02 (NORTH EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
CR No.23/2011
Ramu Chauhan, S/o Late Sh. Kali Prasad
R/o H. No.M-633, J.J. Colony,
Shakurpur, Delhi - 34. .....Revisionist.
Versus
Smt. Bimla, W/o Sh. Shiv Sharan,
R/o 3/256, Nand Nagari, Delhi. .....Respondent.
:JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the order on interim maintenance dated 30.11.2010 passed by Ld. MM/KKD/Delhi in a case bearing No. 518/2006 PS Nand Nagari titled as Bimla Vs. Shiv Saran @ Ramu Chauhan, whereby the respondent (revisionist herein) was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- per month towards the interim maintenance to the petitioner (respondent herein) from the date of filing of aforesaid petition and it was also directed to clear the arrears within six months, the revisionist has preferred the present revision petition on 29.04.2011 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 her appearance through counsel.
3. Before coming to the main petition, the application for condonation of delay is to be considered first. In the said Ramu Chauhan Vs. Bimal Devi (CR No.23/11) Page No. 1 of pages 5 application, the petitioner is praying for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition on the ground that the applicant/ revisionist came to know about passing of the impugned order on 02.04.2011 when he received the summons from the court of Ld. MM and gave appearance on 04.04.2011. Earlier the matter was fixed for order and file was not traceable. The applicant twice or thrice came to the court of Ld. MM and inquired about the status of the case, but the court officials stated that the matter is fixed for order and no order has been passed so far. Further as and when the applicant came to know about the passing of the impugned order, the counsel of the applicant inspected the case file and came to know about the same and immediately applied for the certified copy of the order.
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 has been passed without application of mind in as much as the material and the documents on record and the legal position submitted before the Ld. Trial Court has not been evaluated to find out if the facts of the marriage between the revisionist and respondent existed or not.
(ii). Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that there has been no marriage between the revisionist and the respondent and the same is apparently clear that petition has been filed against Mr. Shiv Sharan and not against Mr. Ram Chauhan (revisionist) and the respondent has shown herself to be the wife of Mr. Shiv Ramu Chauhan Vs. Bimal Devi (CR No.23/11) Page No. 2 of pages 5 Sharan.
(iii). Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that present revisionist and Shiv Sharan both are different persons and the revisionist has no connection with the respondent whatsoever of any kind in any manner.
(iv). Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that revisionist had been married with Smt. Krishnawati @ Basanti and has no connection with the respondent in any manner and has produced all the documents on record with regard to his relationship with Smt. Krishnavati @ Basanti.
(v). Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the revisionist had never resided at H. No.3/256, Nand Nagri, Delhi and the property situated at Nand Nagri is owned by the father of the revisionist and the respondent was allowed to reside in the premises by the father of the revisionist as licensee and the petition U/s 125 Cr.P.C has been filed just to usurp the above said property.
(vi). Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent filed a false and frivolous complaint against the revisionist U/s 494, 497 IPC whereby the police officials made the thorough investigation and found that revisionist has never been resided with the respondent as husband and found the complaint false and bogus.
(vii). Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the respondent has herself suppress her identity, in fact the respondent is not Bimla and her real name is Smt. Kalla.
(viii).Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that order dated 20.04.2007 passed by its Ld. Predecessor whereby the Ld. MM categorically ordered that the depositing 50% of the total decreetal amount with the court in the form of FDRs would be released to the party, who succeed in the case at the end. In fact this order itself shows that the matter would be Ramu Chauhan Vs. Bimal Devi (CR No.23/11) Page No. 3 of pages 5 heard and decided after appreciating all the evidences brought on record by the parties and there is no question of granting interim maintenance until and unless petitioner/ respondent herein establishes her relationship as wife with the revisionist herein by leading evidences.
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. It is well settled that the revisional court can interfere only if there is any illegality in the order or there is any material irregularity in the procedure or there is an error of jurisdiction.
The provisions contained in Section 125 Cr.P.C is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweet of Article 15 (3) reinforced by Article 39 to protect the weaker section like women and children. The object is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owns to society in respect of his wife, parent and children so that they are not left beggared and destituted on the scrap-heap of society and thereby driven to a life of vagrancy, immorality and crime for their subsistence.
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 Ramu Chauhan Vs. Bimal Devi (CR No.23/11) Page No. 4 of pages 5 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. TCR alongwith the copy of the judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court/Successor Court for information and for proceeding further in the matter as per law.
9. Parties are directed to appear before Ld. Trial court on 28.09.2012.
10. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(Announced in the open (RAKESH KUMAR)
court today on 06.09.2012) ASJ-02 (NORTH EAST)
KKD COURTS : DELHI
Ramu Chauhan Vs. Bimal Devi (CR No.23/11) Page No. 5 of pages 5