Delhi District Court
Lakhwinder Singh vs Sarabjeet Kaur on 22 May, 2014
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. T.S. KASHYAP
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Crl. Revision No. 24/2014
Unique I.D. No. 02402R0005072014
In the matter of :-
Lakhwinder Singh . . . Revisionist
S/o Late Sh. Malkiyat Singh
R/o 1/6878 Azad Gali No. 4
East Rohtash Nagar
Shahdara, Delhi
VERSUS
Sarabjeet Kaur . . . Respondent
W/o Sh. Lakhwinder Singh
D/o Late Sh. Bawa Singh
R/o H. No. 274, Subhash Nagar
Tehsil Camp, near SBI
Panipat, Haryana
Date of Institution : 05/04/2014
Date of reserving order : 22/05/2014
Date of pronouncement : 22/05/2014
ORDER
This order shall dispose of a Criminal Revision Petition U/s 397/401 of Cr.P.C preferred by the revisionist Lakhwinder Singh for setting aside the impugned order dated 12/12/2013 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate in M.P. No. 368/2012 whereby interim maintenance order was passed in favour of the respondent and against the revisionist. The present revision is accompanied with an application for condonation of delay in filing the present revision.
Crl. Rev. No. 24/2014 Page 1 of 5 -2-2. Trial court record has been summoned and perused.
3. I have heard the submissions and gone through the record.
4. On behalf of the revisionist, it is submitted that the has no knowledge of procedure of law and on 13/02/14 the revisionist had gone to attend the date of hearing and found that the matter U/s 125 Cr.PC was not listed in the cause list of the court concerned and the matter U/s 12 D.V. Act was adjourned to 26/03/14. Thereafter, revisionist enquired about the case of 125 Cr.PC from the court staff and came to know that that the matter has been transferred to the Family Court, Karkardooma Court. Thereafter, the Counsel for the revisionist enquired from the court and came to know that the said matter is adjourned to 06/06/14 and same is fixed for P/E. Thereafter, the Counsel for the revisionist searched the order-sheet on net and then the revisionist as well as his Counsel came to know that interim order has been passed. He submits that the delay in filing the present revision is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to aforesaid reasons and prays for condonation of delay.
5. On merits, on behalf of revisionist it has been submitted by Ld. Counsel that the revisionist has no permanent source of income as he is doing the private job at the shop and getting salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month and the respondent did not file any evidence and proof with respect to the income of the revisionist; that Ld. Magistrate did not apply her judicial mind at the time of passing the impugned order and the said order was passed in the absence of the revisionist as well as respondent; that the revisionist has also liability of his old, widow mother and two school going minor children; that Ld. M.M failed to consider the fact that the respondent is giving tuition to the students and she is doing private job of Crl. Rev. No. 24/2014 Page 2 of 5 -3- teaching and from both the work she is earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month and has no liability and also maintains a saving bank account in nationalized bank; that Ld. Trial Court also failed to take affidavit of both the parties as per judgment of Puneet Batra case passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Ld. Counsel for revisionist therefore prayed that the revision be allowed and impugned order be set aside.
6. Admittedly, the revision has been filed with a delay of 16 days and in order to get the delay condoned application has been moved. The impugned order was passed by Ld. Trial Court on 12/12/13 in the presence of the revisionist as well as Counsel for the parties and therefore the 90 days period was to be computed from 13/12/13 which expires on 12/03/2014. The contention raised on behalf of the revisionist that the impugned order was passed in his absence cannot be believed because it is a judicial order and is presumed to have been passed as per its tenor which shows presence of revisionist as well as his Counsel. Sec. 125 Cr.PC is a benevolent provision meant for welfare of wife unable to maintain herself and her children and therefore the provision has to be construed strictly. It appears that the revisionist has not made any payment to the respondent towards interim maintenance nor appears to be willing to pay. As such, I am not inclined to condone the delay. The revision is therefore liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation.
7. A perusal of the pleadings reveals that marriage between the parties as well as birth of two children out of the wedlock is not in dispute. The respondent wife is living separately. The copy of photograph of marriage placed on the judicial record of the trial court reveals that marriage was performed with much pomp and show. The respondent has pleaded that the revisionist was earning more than Rs. one lakh per month from his consturction work but revisionist has pleaded that he is Crl. Rev. No. 24/2014 Page 3 of 5 -4- earning Rs. 4,000/- per month but has not placed on record any documentary evidence of his income or the place of his work. On the other hand, he has pleaded that the respondent was earning more than Rs. 15,000/- per month from tuitions and other work. It cannot be believed that the respondent would have married the revisionist if he was earning only Rs. 4,000/- per month when she was earning more than Rs. 15,000/- per month. The copy of photographs of marriage depict the true picture and suggest that the revisionist was earning much more but he has concealed his income. The impugned order is as under :-
"Present : Counsel for both parties.
Respondent in person.
I have talked to the respondent.
The custody of both the children of the couple is with respondent and he has admitted the relationship with the petitioner wife. Respondent is prepared to pay a sum of Rs. 2800/- per month to petitioner as interim maintenance. He shall pay the sum of Rs. 2800/- per month to petitioner wife w.e.f December 2013. Accordingly, the application for interim maintenance is disposed of.
Now put up for PE on 13.02.2014.
Petitioner is directed to supply advance copy of evidence affidavit to opposite side at least 15 days before the NDOH".
and this order appears to be a consent order. The revisionist has not placed on record any document of income to make the court believe that he actually earns Rs. 4,000/- per month. However, he is an able bodied person and his earnings can be guessed by the trial court and assessed according to the Minimum Wages Act which cannot be less than Rs. 7,000/- per month. Ld. Trial court has awarded only Rs. 2,800/- per month towards interim maintenance which does not appear to be unjustified The parties will be at liberty to adduce evidence in support of their rival contentions and Ld. Trial court will be in a position to award maintenance when appropriate adjustment regarding the interim maintenance shall be done.
Crl. Rev. No. 24/2014 Page 4 of 5 -5-8. In my considered view there appears no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order. Therefore, revision is dismissed. Copy of order alongwith trial court record be sent to the Ld. Trial Court. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today i.e 22nd May 2014 (T.S. Kashyap) ASJ-01/Spl. Judge (NDPS) Shahdara District Karkardooma Court, Delhi Crl. Rev. No. 24/2014 Page 5 of 5