Delhi District Court
Unknown vs Geeta Etc on 20 August, 2007
20.08.07.
Present none for the petitioner/husband.
Since none is present for petitioner,
petitioner/husband, his counsel be awaited till 12 noon.
(S.C. Malik)
ASJ: KKD Courts: Delhi
20.08.07.
At 12.10 p.m.
Present Shri Gian Singh, petitioner/husband with
Shri R.K. Choudhary Advocate.
The present criminal revision petition had been kept
for today for arguments on the point of admission of present
criminal revision petition.
Arguments advanced by ld counsel for the petitioner
and petitioner himself on the point of admission have been heard
and trial court record has been perused.
In the course of his arguments, ld counsel for the
petitioner/husband has submitted that ld trial court had passed an
exparte order on 23.08.06 awarding interim maintenance @ Rs.
1,000/- per head to the two respondents no. 1 & 2 who are wife
and son of revisionist before this court.
The grievance of the petitioner/husband is that after setting aside of the aforesaid exparte order ld trial court has now awarded an interim maintenance @ Rs. 1500/- per head per month aggregating to a sum of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. He has submitted that impugned orders of awarding maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month have been passed without giving an opportunity to file his Written Statement. Contd... 20.08.07.
Gian Singh Vs. Geeta etc (Crl Rev. No.: 67/07) After hearing ld counsel for the petitioner/husband it is necessary to go through the TCR again for perusal of the correctness of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.
In the instant case, Respondent no. 1 Smt Geeta - wife and Respondent no. 2- Baljeet, minor son of petitioner had moved petition for maintenance before trial court on 17.12.2005 which was kept for 23.12.05 and thereafter same was adjourned to 20.02.06; 18.05.06 and for 23.08.06. On 23.08.06. when petitioner/husband did not appear despite service before the ld. trial court, he was proceeded as exparte and an interim maintenance @ Rs. 1,000/- per person per month was awarded to the respondents wife and son but the husband did not make any payment to his wife or son. On 29.08.06 petitioner/husband moved an application for setting aside exparte order dated 23.08.06 notice of which was sent to the respondent/wife for 07.09.06. Notice of the same application was again ordered to be sent for 10.10.06 when the matter was adjourned for reply and arguments on the said application for 02.11.2006 and again it was kept for 21.11.06 for the same purpose. On 21.11.06 arguments on the said application were heard and it was adjourned to 07.12.2006 but thereafter for various reasons this matter was kept for 04.01.07 and then for 15.01.07 but even then no maintenance was made by revisionist/husband to his wife and son. Ultimately on 03.02.2007 at the instance of the petitioner/husband the ld trial court had set aside its exparte orders dated 23.08.06 subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500/-. No costs has been paid till date, even as per the admission of the husband/revisionist herein.
Thereafter the matter before ld trial court was adjourned to 07.03.07 and 15.05.07 for Written Statement and reply but on 15.05.07 initially husband/respondent and his counsel absented in attending the trial court and matter was kept for 2.30 p.m. and at 2.30 p.m. ld trial court passed the impugned orders awarding maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month per person aggregating to a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent no 1/wife and Respondent no. 2/son.
It is clear from the impugned orders which have been read over by the ld counsel for the petitioner/husband that the said order was passed in the presence of the parties and their counsel after hearing their arguments on the interim maintenance.
It is also crystal clear from the record that husband/revisionist herein is not at all willing to pay even a single penny to his wife and son as maintenance and is adopting all tactics for the same. The conduct of the husband is clear even from non payment of costs of Rs. 500/- imposed on him by ld trial court.
Coming to the merits of the impugned orders, after carefully gone through the same, I see no error or illegality in the impugned orders passed by ld MM especially in view of the conduct of the revisionist/husband and hence in the over all facts and circumstances of this case, I do not see any reason to recall the impugned orders passed by ld trial court. Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition stands dismissed in limini without issuing any notice to the other party.
Revision petition be consigned to RR.
A copy of this order be sent to ld trial court with TCR immediately for information.
Dictated and announced in open Court on 20.08.07.
(S.C. Malik) ASJ: KKD Courts: Delhi 20.08.2007.