Delhi District Court
Ajay Kumar vs Kavita Kumari on 28 January, 2017
1
IN THE COURT OF BHUPESH KUMAR
SPECIAL JUDGE, (PC ACT) CBI-01, (SOUTH)
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 8138/2016
Ajay Kumar
S/o Sh Suraj Mal
R/o 90A Azadpur Village
Delhi-110033.
Also At
A15, Rajeev Nagar Extension
Begampur, Delhi. ..... Appellant
VERSUS
Kavita Kumari
W/o Sh Ajay Kumar
D/o Sh Dheer Singh
R/o C-1158, Sangam Vihar
New Delhi-110062. ..... Respondent
Date of Institution : 12.08.2015
Arguments Heard on : 27.01.2017
Date of Decision : 28.01.2017
ORDER
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant Ajay Kumar against the impugned order dated 14.07.2015 passed by Ld Trial Court vide which the appellant was directed to pay Rs 4000/- per month towards the maintenance of respondent Kavita Kumari. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent. TCR was called.
CA No. 8138/2016 (Bhupesh Kumar) Spl.Judge (PC Act) CBI01/28.01.2017 2
2. Before proceeding ahead here it is necessary to reproduce the brief facts of the matter as essential for adjudication of the present appeal. The respondent has filed application U/S 12 of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act 2005 against the appellant and others. The application was contested by the appellant by filing written reply. During the proceedings vide order dated 16.05.2014 ad-interim maintenance of Rs 4000/- was granted to the respondent by Ld Trial Court till disposal of the application for interim maintenance with further direction to appellant to deposit ad-interim maintenance in the bank account of the respondent. Thereafter, arguments of parties were heard and vide order dated 16.01.2015 application of respondent for interim maintenance was dismissed by Ld Trial Court. Thereafter, the respondent moved an application U/S 25 of Domestic Violence Act stating that Rs 4000/- referred by Trial Court in order dated 16.01.2015 was ad-interim maintenance deposited by the appellant in the account of the respondent in view of order dated 15.05.2014. The reply to the application was filed and it was not denied that Rs 4000/- was deposited in the account of the respondent as ad-interim maintenance. Then Ld Trial Court vide impugned order dated 14.07.2015 directed the appellant to pay Rs 4000/- per month towards the maintenance of the complainant.
3. I have heard the arguments of Sh Suneet Nagpal Ld counsel for appellant and Sh Rajpal Kasana Ld counsel for respondent.
4. Ld counsel for appellant has submitted that application U/S 25 of the DV Act is maintainable only in the changed circumstances but CA No. 8138/2016 (Bhupesh Kumar) Spl.Judge (PC Act) CBI01/28.01.2017 3 in this matter Ld Trial Court has virtually reviewed its own order dated 16.01.2015 vide which the application for interim maintenance moved by the respondent was dismissed.
5. On the other hand Ld counsel for respondent has submitted that with the dismissal of the interim maintenance application on 16.01.2015, the circumstances of the respondent totally changed because the findings of the court were on wrong factual position as Rs 4000/- which the respondent continuously received in her account was ad- interim maintenance and it was not her regular income as observed by Ld Trial Court vide order dated 16.01.2015 therefore the respondent had no other option but to move application U/S 25 of DV Act before Ld Trial Court.
6. I have heard the arguments of Ld counsels for the parties and perused the material carefully.
7. As per Section 25 of DV Act reflects that on application, if the Magistrate finds any changed circumstances which requires altercation, modification or re-notification of the earlier order he may for reasons to be recorded pass the orders which he deemed appropriate. Reverting to the present matter, as per record, on 16.05.2014 ad-interim maintenance of Rs 4000/- was granted to the respondent by Ld Trial Court with directions to the appellant to deposit the same in the bank account of the respondent. Vide order dated 16.01.2015 the interim maintenance application moved by the respondent was dismissed on the CA No. 8138/2016 (Bhupesh Kumar) Spl.Judge (PC Act) CBI01/28.01.2017 4 ground that she has regular income of Rs 4000/- per month as per her statement of bank account. Thereafter, on the application U/S 25 of DV Act the respondent brought to the notice of the court that Rs 4000/- referred by Ld Trial Court in order dated 16.01.2015 was actually ad- interim maintenance granted to the respondent vide order dated 16.05.2014 and not regular income of the respondent. In the reply to the said application this fact has not been denied. These facts can be easily termed as changed circumstances which the Trial Court has considered and passed the impugned order.
8. Hence, no illegality, irregularity or infirmity has been found in the impugned order of Ld Trial Court and no justified reason is found to interfere with the same. The impugned order is upheld and consequently, the present appeal stands dismissed.
9. TCR be sent back to the Ld Trial Court alongwith the copy of this order. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court (Bhupesh Kumar)
Today i.e. 28.01.2017 Spl. Judge (PC Act, CBI-01 (South)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
CA No. 8138/2016 (Bhupesh Kumar)
Spl.Judge (PC Act) CBI01/28.01.2017