Delhi District Court
Shri Sanjay Grover vs Smt. Santosh Rani on 28 August, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PADAM KANT SAXENA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE: DELHI
Criminal Revision Petition No. 62/2008
Shri Sanjay Grover
S/o Late Sh. Laxman Dass
R/o T-650-B. Second Floor, Janta Park
Baljeet Nagar Road No.20
New Delhi ....Revisionist/Petitioner
Vs.
1. Smt. Santosh Rani
W/O Late Sh. Laxman Dass
R/o T-650-B. Second Floor, Janta Park
Baljeet Nagar Road No.20
New Delhi
2. The State ....Respondents
Dates of Institution : 25.08.2008
Date of Final Arguments : 27.08.2008
Judgment reserved on : 27.08.2008
Date of Judgment : 28.08.2008
1 Of 6
2
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is directed against against order dated 04.06.2008 passed in C.C. no. 17/1 which had been filed by respondent no.1 under Section 12 of "The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005' (for short referred to as 'the Act') inter alia against the present petitioner whereby each one of the three respondents therein, was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month, as interim maintenance to respondent no. 1 herein.
2. I have heard ld. counsel for petitioner, respondent no.1 and ld. APP for the State and have also gone through the records carefully.
3. Respondent no. 1 is the mother of the petitioner and is stated to be a senior citizen.
4. Record of ld. trial Court reveals that notice of the said petition was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties and it was for the first time that on 4.6.2008, the present petitioner and other two 2 Of 6 3 respondents appeared before it and sought time for filing of reply. However, ld. Duty Magistrate who was looking after the case in the absence of ld. Presiding Office of ld. trial Court , passed the impugned order.
5. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1 has vehemently argued that the impugned order passed by ld. trial court is an interlocutory order and therefore as per Section 397 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short referred to as 'the Code') the present petition is stated to be not maintainable.
6. The question is, what is an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397 (2) of the Code.
7. While dealing with the said term viz. 'interlocutory order', Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar Industries Vs. Bhiwani Denim, AIR 2001 S.C. 3625, has held as follows:
"......if the contention of the petitioner who moved the superior court in revision, as against the order under challenge is upheld, would the criminal proceedings as a whole culminate? If it would, the order is not 3 Of 6 4 interlocutory in spite of the fact that it was passed during the interlocutory stage".
8. Now let us apply the aforesaid law to the facts of the present case.
9. In the instant petition, the petitioner does not dispute that he is son of respondent no. 1. According to the petitioner, he along with his family resides on the ground floor, respondent no. 1 with her other son Deepak and his family resides on the IInd floor while the IIIrd son with his family resides on the 1st Floor of the property no. T650B, Baljeet Nagar, Road No. 20, New Delhi. Admittedly the said property was owned by father of the petitioner who has since expired. Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the petitioner during the childhood and even thereafter must have lived with his mother, the respondent no. 1 and her husband, in this very property and therefore petitioner would have shared household with his mother, the respondent no. 1.
10. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is stated to be illegal because various provisions of the Act and the Code, 4 Of 6 5 have not been followed and was passed in haste by ld. Link M.M. Further according to the petitioner, the impugned order was passed without affording reasonable time to him for filing the reply. It is also claimed by the petitioner that the impugned order was passed by ld. trial court without giving him an opportunity of filing the reply. Further, the amount of interim maintenance is stated to be unjust and improper.
11. It is important to note that even if the aforesaid objections of the petitioner are upheld, still the proceedings instituted under Section 12 of the Act and pending before ld. trial court, would not come to an end and would have to continue to be decided as per the provisions of the Act and the Code. At the cost of repetition it may be pointed out that respondent no. 1 in her petition before ld. trial court inter-alia stated that after death of her husband she was not being looked after by her sons including the petitioner and therefore just as an interim measure, the impugned order was passed.
12. Therefore in view of the law laid down in the case of Bhaskar Industries Vs. Bhiwani Denim (Supra), the impugned order passed by ld. trial court, is an interlocutory order within the meaning 5 Of 6 6 of Section 397 (2) of the Code and therefore the present revision petition is not maintainable.
13. Resultantly the present petition stands dismissed being not maintainable.
Dictated and announced (PADAM KANT SAXENA) in the open court today ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:
i.e. on 28.08.2008 DELHI.
6 Of 6