Delhi District Court
Suhail Khan vs . State & Anr. on 22 February, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJESH KUMAR SINGH
SPECIAL JUDGE-NDPS/ASJ (SOUTH)
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Crl. Revision No. 29/2018
Suhail Khan vs. State & Anr.
Suhail Khan
S/o Sh. Babu Khan
R/o G-3, HIG Flat,
Sector-23, Sanjay Nagar,
Ghaziabad (U.P.).
.....Revisionist
Versus
1. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Yasmeen Khan
D/o Sh. Mustaq Ahmad,
Ground Floor, Duggal Colony,
New Delhi-110062.
.....Respondents
Computer ID/CNR No. : DLST01-000420-2018
Date of institution : 20.01.18
Date of reserving judgment : 21.02.18
Date of pronouncement : 22.02.18
Decision : Petition Dismissed.
ORDER
1. Matter is listed today for order. Arguments were heard on the last date. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 had filed reply/written submissions with copies of authorities relied C.R. No. 29/18 Suhail Khan vs. State 1/6 upon by him.
2. The petitioner has filed the revision against order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the Court of Ld. MM (Mahila Court)-01/South in Execution No. 79/17 titled Yasmeen Khan vs. Suhail Khan & Ors., PS-Neb Sarai. Brief facts are that vide order dated 07.10.2016, passed in CC No. 467330/16, Ld. M.M. granted interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month and Rs. 5,000/- per month towards rent to the respondent u/s. 12 of PWDV Act. Both parties filed appeal against the order. The appeals were registered as C.A. No. 8314/16 and 8317/16. Both appeals were disposed of by the Court of Ld. ASJ-03 (South) vide order dated 02.06.2017. The order dated 07.10.2016 passed by Ld. M.M. was modified. The interim maintenance amount was increased to Rs. 12,000/- and the amount towards rent was increased to Rs. 8,000/- per month. Petitioner filed the execution petition in question for recovery of an amount of Rs. 5.20 Lacs towards arrears in pursuance of order dated 02.06.2017 passed by the Court of Ld. ASJ-03.
3. In the Appeal before the Court of Ld. ASJ-03, the petitioner herein raised issue regarding payment of Rs. 8.5 C.R. No. 29/18 Suhail Khan vs. State 2/6 Lacs by him to the respondent. He claimed that the payment was made by him towards settlement dated 11.10.2015. The respondent claimed that the amount had been paid towards payment of the installments of the Honda Amaze car, which was purchased by her father at the time of marriage and given to the petitioner herein. Ld. ASJ-03 observed that the contention of the respondent regarding payment of the amount of Rs. 8.5 Lacs could not be disbelieved and brushed aside to dis-entitle her for the maintenance.
4. When the respondent filed the execution petition before the Court of Ld. M.M., the petitioner filed objection and took various objection regarding right of the respondent to claim maintenance. It was also stated that the sum of Rs. 8.5 Lacs and the interest derived from the said amount was being used by the respondent and this fact was not considered by the Court while granting interim maintenance. It was also stated that the car was in the name of the father of the respondent and the petitioner could not use the same. He stated that he was spending Rs. 500/- per month towards the safety and care of the vehicle. He prayed that the respondent be asked to take C.R. No. 29/18 Suhail Khan vs. State 3/6 the car back or he be permitted to deposit the car in the PS.
5. By the impugned order, Ld. M.M. rejected the objections filed by the petitioner. It was observed that the Court could not go beyond the decree and the issue of Rs. 8.5 Lacs had already been considered by the Court of Ld. ASJ-03.
6. In the grounds of revision, it is stated that the objections taken by the petitioner, were summarily rejected. The learned Trial Court did not consider that respondent received Rs. 8.5 Lacs from the petitioner by deceiving him. The Ld. Trial Court wrong did not direct the respondent to take the car back and the Ld. Trial Court did not consider the manner in which the amount of Rs. 8.5 Lacs was to be adjusted.
7. Opposing the petition, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the petition itself could not have been admitted without deposit of the arrears of maintenance in terms of judgment by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Rajeev Preenja vs. Sarika & Ors. 159 (2009) DLT 616.
8. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the C.R. No. 29/18 Suhail Khan vs. State 4/6 petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed a complaint u/s. 406 IPC against the respondent in respect of the amount of Rs. 8.5 Lacs. Though various grounds have been mentioned in the petition, during arguments, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner confined the prayer regarding adjustment of the amount of Rs. 8.5 Lacs.
9. I have considered the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties and I have perused the record including the record of the Trial Court. If the arguments of the petitioner are accepted then the amount claimed by the respondent in the execution petition, will have to be adjusted. In that case, it would not be a case of arrears of maintenance, and therefore, the condition laid down in Rajeev Preenja's case will not apply. However, it needs to be examined whether there is any illegality of facts or law in the impugned order which calls for interference by this court exercising power of revision u/s. 397 Cr.P.C.
10. In the objections filed by the petitioner to the execution petition, he raised various issues on merit. Ld. M.M. rightly observed that those objections could not be entertained C.R. No. 29/18 Suhail Khan vs. State 5/6 by the executing Court. The amount of Rs. 8.5 Lacs was not paid towards the arrears of maintenance. Adjustment of the amount could be allowed if it was paid towards the arrears of maintenance. The payment was made in pursuance of settlement dated 11.10.2015 which is disputed by the respondent. Petitioner has already filed a complaint against the respondent in respect of the amount of Rs. 8.5 Lacs. Ld. Trial Court rightly observed that the issue of Rs. 8.5 Lacs paid by the petition herein also could not be considered in the execution petition.
11. There is no error of fact or law in the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The stay on the trial Court proceedings stands vacated. Copy of the order be sent to Ld. Trial Court along with the Trial Court.
12. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in Open Court (Rajesh Kumar Singh)
on 22nd February 2018 Special Judge (NDPS)/ASJ
South District: Saket
C.R. No. 29/18 Suhail Khan vs. State 6/6