Delhi District Court
Arsh Sonkar @ Pappu vs State ( Nct Of Delhi) on 17 September, 2011
IN THE COURT OF MS. MADHU JAIN, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE01, NORTH, DELHI.
Crl. Rev. No. 101/2011
CC No. 178/1/10
P.S.: Subzi Mandi
U/s 12 DV Act
Case ID No. 02401R0372462011
Concerned Court/Successor Court:
Ms. Geetanjali, Ld. MM, Delhi.
In the matter of:
Arsh Sonkar @ Pappu
S/o Sh. Mewa Lal Sonkar
R/o Mewa Fish Corner
near Dr. Chawla Clinic,
Shop No. 2376, Punjabi Basti,
Subzi Mandi, Delhi.
........Petitioner
Versus
1. State ( NCT of Delhi)
2. Smt. Suman Sonkar
W/o Sh. Arsh Sonkar
R/o H. No. 29 Gur Mandi,
Opp. Jain Colony, Delhi07.
..............Respondents
Crl. Rev. No. 101/2011 1/6
O R D E R
1. This is a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner against order dated 11.5.2011 passed by Ld. MM whereby the Ld. MM granted maintenance of Rs. 5000/ per month to the petitioner from the date of filing of the petition till the disposal of this petition.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that respondent no.2 filed a petition u/s 12 of D. V. Act against the petitioner in the trial court with the allegations that respondent no.2 married with the petitioner on 21.2.1984 according to Hindu rites and customs and at the time of marriage sufficient gifts, gold and silver ornaments, expensive furniture and other valuable household items were given by the family and relatives of the respondent no.2 to the petitioner. According to the respondent no.2, soon after the marriage, she lived together with her husband/petitioner and her in laws at the matrimonial home in Delhi and out of this wedlock three children namely Versha, Akash and Raj were born on 22.7.1992, 12.5.1994 and 22.7.1996. According to the respondent no.2 just after few days of marriage, she came to know that petitioner is a habitual drunkard and he used to beat the respondent no.2 after taking liquor. The petitioner used to beat the respondent no.2 with fists blows. The respondent no.2 was helpless and she informed the local police but no action was taken. According to the respondent no.2, the petitioner always used to demand money from her and in case of her refusal, he used to beat her mercilessly. According to the respondent no.2, due to quarrelsome Crl. Rev. No. 101/2011 2/6 behaviour of the petitioner, the respondent no.2 separated several times but she again joined the company of the petitioner just to save her matrimonial life with the intervention of elders members of the family. Respondent no.2 has been living separately from the petitioner since October, 2009. According to the respondent no.2, the petitioner neither took care of her even at the time of her pregnancy nor even paid any single penny to the respondent no.2 for her maintenance or for the maintenance of her children. Respondent no.2 is barely able to survive and to meet her day to day expenses, she is completely dependent upon her relatives and friends. According to the respondent no.2, the petitioner is a businessman and is running a fish and mutton shop at Punjabi Basti and is earning approximately Rs.30,000/ per month. Hence, the respondent no.2 filed a complaint u/s 12 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the petitioner. After hearing arguments, Ld. MM has granted maintenance of Rs.5000/ per month to the petitioner from the date of filing of the petition till the disposal of this petition. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed the present petition.
3. After filing of the present revision, notice was sent to respondent no.2 and trial court record was summoned. Respondent no.2 appeared and contested the revision petition.
4. I have heard Ld. counsel for the petitioner as well as Ld. legal aid counsel for the respondent no.2 and have carefully perused the Crl. Rev. No. 101/2011 3/6 record.
5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner is running a rehri of fish which is a seasonal work which generally takes place in winter and therefore, the presumption by the trial court that respondent/husband is running a meat shop in the market and his income cannot be less than Rs. 15,000/ per month is per se illegal.
6. On the other hand, legal aid counsel for the respondent no.2 argued that respondent no.2 is looking after her three children also and even we take the income of the petitioner Rs. 8,000/ per month and if it is divided proportionately among all the family members then still it comes out to be more than Rs. 5000/ per month and therefore, the maintenance fixed at Rs. 5000/ per month by the trial court is not exaggerated one. Conclusion:
7. It is an admitted fact that petitioner is running a fish shop though he has stated that he only sells fish in the winter but the contention of the respondent that petitioner is running a fish and mutton shop in Punjabi Basti cannot be ignored. It may be mentioned that selling the mutton or fish is not a seasonal work. It is possible that during the winter season, the sale of fish or mutton increases as compared to the other seasons but no presumption can be raised that it is only a seasonal work. All over Delhi the business of meat shops are being run throughout the year and therefore it cannot be said that it is only a seasonal work. The marriage between the parties stands admitted and the birth of all the three Crl. Rev. No. 101/2011 4/6 children are also stands admitted. It is also not in dispute that at present it is respondent no.2 who is looking after and maintaining all the three children who are studying and except for the daughter two other children are still school going and in addition to their expenses for the study, they also need nutritious diet and clothes etc. It is the duty of the petitioner not only to look after the respondent no.2 but also all the three children. Even if for the arguments sake, we say that presumption of Rs. 15,000/ per month income of the petitioner by the trial court is mis placed or that petitioner is not earning so much of amount but as stated by legal aid counsel for the respondent no.2 that even if we take the income of the petitioner to be half as taken by the trial court and that income if divided proportionately between three children and respondent, still the maintenance of Rs. 5000/ per month as fixed by the trial court is not on the higher side or exaggerated one. Ld. trial court has taken into consideration not only the status of the parties but also the responsibility and liability of the respondent no.2 who is maintaining her children, thereafter only, Ld. trial court has fixed the maintenance of Rs. 5000/ per month. Admittedly despite the orders of the court, the petitioner has not paid any single penny to the respondent no.2. Those seeking equity from the court must come to the court with clean hands. The petitioner on one side is seeking relief from the court and on the other side he is flouting the orders of the court by not paying any maintenance to the respondent. As such, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 11.5.2011 Crl. Rev. No. 101/2011 5/6 passed by the trial court.
8. In view of abovesaid discussion, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 11.5.2011 passed by the Ld. MM. Same is, therefore, upheld. The present revision filed by the petitioner is dismissed. Parties to appear before the trial court on 23.9.2011. Trial court record alongwith a copy of this order be sent back. Revision file be consigned to record room.
(MADHU JAIN) Additional Sessions Judge01 (North) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Announced in the open court on 17.9.2011.
Crl. Rev. No. 101/2011 6/6