IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE01, DISTT. WEST, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Crl. (R) No. 24/2012
Unique Case I.D. No. 02401R0173942012
Smt. Shakuntala
W/o Sh. Balender Kumar Vayas
D/o Late Shri Gopal Dass Malhotra
R/o H.No. F207, C/o Smt. Kanta
W/o Chamanlal Puri, Moti Nagar, Delhi.… Petitioner
Versus
Shri Balender Kumar Vyas
S/o Late Shri Mayudeen Vayas
R/o H.N. C21, Srichand Park,
Near Matiala Uttam Nagar,Delhi110059 … Respondent
Date of Institution : 18.04.2012
Date or arguments : 10.10.2012
Date of orders : 30.10.2012
ORDER
This is a revision against the order dated 15.03.12 passed by the trial court in case no. 705/04 of PS Moti Nagar, whereby the application of the petitioner for interim maintenance U/s 125 Cr.PC has been dismissed.
2. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. counsel for the respondent and perused the file.
3. The petitioner has filed the application U/s 125 Cr.PC against the respondent alleging that the petitioner has married with the respondent on 20.1.1993 and out of the said wedlock one female child was born. The maternal uncle of the petitioner Shri Buta Ram Chopra constructed a temple and handed over the reins of the said temple to the petitioner. The petitioner also acquired another plot adjacent to it from her own funds. The respondent used to humiliate and assault the petitioner and also indulged in extra marital affairs. The petitioner was thrown out of the house. The respondent is working as a Pujari in the temple and is earning more than Rs. 35,000/ per month. The petitioner is penniless and is on the mercy of her sister for her minimum requirements. In the application of interim maintenance, the petitioner has prayed that the respondent be directed to pay Rs. 15,000/ per month as interim maintenance. In reply, the respondent has alleged that the marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 14.1.95. The said marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce on 21.10.09. The respondent is earning Rs. 2500 to 3000/ per month by doing his job of Puja Path. The petitioner is running a Bhajan Mandli and is earning more than Rs. 50,000/ per month. The petitioner is the coowner of the house bearing No. F207, Sudershan Park, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. The petitioner is a income tax payee. The respondent has denied the other allegations of the petitioner.
4. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has argued that the trial court has passed the impugned order on the basis of conjecture and surmises and which is against the facts and the law. The trial court has passed the impugned order without considering the material on record. The income tax return filed by the respondent pertains to the year 200405 and 200506, while the petitioner was living with the respondent and the same were filed by the respondent in her name. The petitioner has not made any concealment in her petition. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the respondent has argued that the trial court has passed the impugned order after considering the material on record. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The revision petition is without any merits and it be dismissed.
5. The income tax returns of the assessment year 2004-05 which is in the name of the petitioner shows the income of the petitioner as 1,04,502. The income tax return of the assessment year 2005-06 which is in the name of the petitioner shows the income of the petitioner as 1,67,267. The petitioner has also alleged in her petition that she is acquired one plot adjacent to the plot in which the temple has been situated. The petitioner has not specifically denied the allegations of the respondent that she is running a Bhajan Mandli and she is the head of said Bhajan Mandli and that she is the coowner of the House bearing No. F207, Sudershan Park, Moti Nagar, Delhi. Keeping in view these facts which are showing the financial position of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to show that she is unable to maintain herself. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 15.03.12 passed by the trial court in case no. 705/04 of PS Moti Nagar and it is upheld. The revision petition is without any merits and it is dismissed. Nothing expressed herein shall tantamount to an opinion on the merits of the case. Trial court record be sent back to the concerned trial court along with the attested copy of this order. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Rajneesh Kumar Gupta)
today i.e. on 30.10.12 Additional Sessions Judge 01 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
