Ajay Gupta VS Sonia Gupta

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

VIBHU BAKHRU
Ajay Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Sonia Gupta – Respondent

Counsel for the Parties
For the Petitioner:Mr Kanishk Ahuja and Ms Neha Bhatia, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr Shailendra Babbar and Ms Siddhi Mittal, Advocates along with the respondent in person.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J.—The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 14.03.2019 (hereafter the ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Tis Hazari Courts (the Family Court) in Maintenance Petition No. 142/2014 titled ‘Sonia Gupta v Ajay Gupta’. By the impugned order, the Family Court, inter alia, rejected the petitioner’s application under Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter ‘Cr.PC’) praying that the evidence filed by the respondent by way of an affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) be struck off and the respondent be directed to examine herself in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Cr.PC.

2. The petitioner contends that the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.PC are required to be conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 126 Cr.PC. It is the petitioner’s case that in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 126 of Cr.PC, all evidence is required to be taken in presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made and is to be recorded in the manner prescribed for a summons case. Therefore, an affidavit by way of evidence, in subs