Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
I.S. MEHTA, J.
DR. NIHAL SINGH – PETITIONER
Versus
DR. (MRS.) PRIYANKA SINGH BADALIA AND ORS. - RESPONDENTS
CRL.REV.P. 117 of 2015 & CRL.M.A. 2941 of 2015, 19194 of 2016
Decided On : 11-10-2017
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - The court referred to Section 12 of the Act, which allows a woman to claim maintenance for herself and her children. The court also considered Section 23 of the Act, which provides for interim maintenance. The court emphasized the statutory obligation of parents to maintain their children.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist, Dr. Nihal Singh, filed a revision petition to quash the order of maintenance passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The revisionist and respondent No.1 were married and had a child. The respondent filed an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for maintenance. The trial court awarded maintenance to the respondent and their minor daughter. The revisionist appealed against this order, but the appeal was dismissed. The revisionist then filed the present revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the arguments of both parties. The revisionist claimed to be unemployed and suffering from depression, while the respondent argued that the revisionist had sufficient means to pay maintenance. The court referred to various judgments and legal principles regarding the obligation of parents to maintain their children. The court held that the revisionist cannot shy away from his statutory obligation to maintain his wife and minor child. The court also noted that the determination of the main maintenance application is pending before the trial court and the interim maintenance granted by the trial court is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no infirmity in the impugned order and dismissed the revision petition. However, the court clarified that this judgment does not affect the merits of the main maintenance application pending between the parties, and the determination of the maintenance amount will be done by the trial court after considering the evidence on record and income affidavits of the parties.
Result: The revision petition is dismissed. The trial court is directed to dispose of the main maintenance application within six months from the date of this judgment.
I.S. MEHTA, J.
1. The instant revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the revisionist, i.e. Dr. Nihal Singh, for quashing/setting aside of the impugned order dated 21.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, in Criminal Appeal No. 42/2014.
2. The brief facts stated are that, the revisionist was married to the respondent No.1, i.e. Dr. Priyanka Singh Badalia, on 22.11.2009 as per Hindu rites and customs at Dwarka, New Delhi and out of the said wedlock one female child was born to them on 29.10.2010, i.e. Baby Harsha/respondent No. 2. Thereafter, on 12.12.2010 families of both the parties had altercation among themselves as a result of which the respondent no.1 left the matrimonial house along with the newly born child, i.e. respondent no. 2, and since 13.12.2010 both the parties are living separately.
3. On 06.05.2011, the respondent no.1 filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 bearing Complaint Case No. 1003/1/2011 for maintenance for herself and her minor child/respondent no.2 before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. Consequently, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 24th June, 2011 directed the present revisionist to pay Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) per month to respondent no.2 only through respondent no.1 since the date of filing of the case, i.e. 06.05.2011.
4. Aggrieved from the aforesaid order dated 24.06.2011, the revisionist as well as the respondents filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 73/11 and 54/11 respectively before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi and the learned Additional Sessions Judge remanded back the case to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate with the direction to hear the arguments on the application under Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and then decide the interim relief to be awarded to the respondents herein.
5. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate after hearing both the parties and pursuing the respective affidavits of income of both the parties vide order dated 03.06.2014 awarded a maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of respondent no.1 towards her maintenance, Rs. 10,000/- towards rent/alternative rental accommodation and Rs.5000/- per month towards maintenance of their minor daughter i.e. respondent no.2, from the date of filing of petition, i.e. 06.05.2011, till the disposal of the petition on merits. It was further ordered that the aggrieved person shall be entitled to 10% yearly increase in the awarded maintenance.
6. Aggrieved form the aforesaid orders dated 03.06.2014 the present revisionist filed a Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2014 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi on the ground that the interim maintenance awarded by the learned Trial Court, is excessive in view of the fact that the revisionist/appellant is unemployed having no source of income. Consequently, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the said Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2014 of the present revisionist vide order dated 21.11.2014 for want of merit.
Hence the present revision petition.
7. The learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is the husband, a doctor MBBS and is unemployed and the respondent No.1 is physiotherapist; running a clinic from House No. 740, Palam Extn., Dwarka, Delhi. It is further submitted that since the revisionist is qualified MBBS, does not tantamount any capacity on part of the revisionist whereas the wife, i.e. respondent no.1, is a physiotherapist and running her clinic and earning handsome amount by practicing physiotherapy.
8. The learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that the revisionist is suffering from moderate depression, which fact is support
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
