$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: April 16, 2024 + CRL.M.C. 140/2024, CRL.M.A. 571/2024 RAJEEV DAGAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Mehta, Mr. Himanshu Nailwal, Mr. Raghav Arora, Mr. Yash Mehta, Mr. Sehaj and Mr. Abhilash Mathur, Advocates.

versus MUKESH DAGAR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Lakshay Kumar and Mr. Gitesh Aneja, Advocates with respondent in-person. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA

J U D G M E N T

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J. (ORAL)

1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner Rajeev Dagar (husband of respondent No.2) for setting aside order dated 15.12.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, South West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in „Rajeev Dagar vs. Mukesh Dagar‟, CA No.188/2023 and „Mukesh Dagar vs. Rajeev Dagar‟, CA No.226/2023.

2. In brief, Criminal Appeal No.188/2023 was preferred on behalf of Rajeev Dagar (petitioner herein) challenging order dated 31.03.2023 passed by learned MM in proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 whereby interim maintenance was granted in favour of all three children @ Rs.80,000/- per month from the date of filing of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 140/2024 Page 1 of 5 application i.e. 07.04.2018. On the other hand, Criminal Appeal No.226/2023 was preferred on behalf of Mukesh Dagar (respondent/wife) against the aforesaid order dated 31.03.2023 passed by learned MM for enhancing the maintenance amount.

3. Both the aforesaid appeals were disposed of vide order dated 15.12.2023 by learned ASJ whereby CA No.188/2023 preferred on behalf of Rajeev Dagar (petitioner) was dismissed, while CA No.226/2023 preferred on behalf of Mukesh Dagar (respondent) was allowed granting maintenance @ Rs.95,000/- for each child (i.e. Rs.1,90,000/- per month for two younger children apart from maintenance of Rs.95,000/- for the eldest daughter from the date of filing of the case till she attains the age of 18 years).

4. The grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner is that aforesaid appeals were taken up by the learned Appellate Court on 15.12.2023, in violation of transfer order No.50/D3/Gaz.-IA/DHC/2023 dated 14.12.2023, whereby the officers of Delhi Higher Judicial Service were transferred with immediate effect and contrary to Note 2, which provides as under :

“2. The judicial officers under transfer shall notify the cases in which they had reserved judgments/orders before relinquishing the charge of the court in terms of the posting/transfer order. The judicial officers shall pronounce judgments/orders in all such matters on the date fixed or maximum within a period of 2-3 weeks thereof, notwithstanding the posting/ transfer. Date of pronouncement shall be notified in the cause list of the court to which the matter pertains as also of the court to which the judicial officer has been transferred and on the website.”

5. He further submits that aforesaid transfer order was forwarded to the learned judicial officers and came to the notice of learned Trial Court on 15.12.2023 prior to hearing and despite transfer orders, the appeals were Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 140/2024 Page 2 of 5 taken up for hearing and orders uploaded on 19/20.12.2023 despite the objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that mediation proceedings were pending pursuant to an order dated 24.11.2023 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cont. Case (C) No.1171/2022. It is pointed out that appeals were listed before the learned Appellate Court at item Nos.12&13 (in the cause list) and arguments could not have been concluded by 11:00AM. Further, it is not feasible to pass a detailed order running into 14 pages, without reserving the same prior to 11:00AM. It is prayed that appeals be remanded back for fresh hearing to the learned Appellate Court/Successor Court for consideri