Back
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 5th OCTOBER, 2021 IN THE MATTER OF:
+ CRL. REV. P. 549/2018 URVASHI AGGARWAL & ORS. ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Praveen Suri and Ms. Komal Chhibber, Advocates versus INDERPAUL AGGARWAL ..... Respondent Through Mr. Digvijay Ray and Mr. Aman Yadav, Advocates CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
CRL. M.A. 11083/2021
1. This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for seeking the review of the Order of this Hon’ble Court dated 14.06.2021 in Criminal Revision Petition 549/2021 wherein this Court had granted a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the revisionist/Petitioner No.1 till the Petitioner No. 2 completes his graduation or starts earning, whichever is earlier.
2. Mr. Digvijay Rai, Counsel for the Respondent, has put forth four grounds for recalling the Order dated 14.06.2021 rendered by this Hon’ble Court:
i. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the impugned Judgement fails to deal with Amarendra Kumar Paul v. Maya Paul & Ors., (2009) 8 SCC 359, wherein the Supreme Court had held that according to Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., an application for grant of maintenance is maintainable so far as the concerned children have not attained majority. It is stated that Petitioner No. 2 had attained majority on 14.08.2018, and completion of graduation would entail maintenance being given till 14.08.2021.
ii. It has been submitted by Mr. Rai that this Hon’ble Court has proceeded on the ground that the Petitioner No. 1 is an Upper Division Clerk in MCD earning Rs. 60,000/- per month, whereas in actuality she is an Assistant Section Officer (Gazetted) and her Gross Salary for the month of January 2020 was Rs.71,328/-. It has been stated that these figures are a matter of record, and that apart from this figure, Petitioner No.1 has also been obtaining education expenses from her employer. It has been submitted as per RTI obtained by the Respondent, Rs. 8,000/- was received by Petitioner No.1 from September 2008 to December 2008, Rs. 6,000/- from January 2009 to March 2009, Rs. 12,000/- from April 2009 to September 2009, Rs. 6,000/- from October 2009 to December 2009, and Rs. 6,000/- from January 2010 to March 2010. It has been stated that educational expenses of Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have been paid till date.
iii. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has stated that impugned Judgement, granting a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month as interim maintenance to Petitioner No. 1 for Petitioner No. 2 from the date of attaining majority till he completes his graduation or starts earning, whichever is earlier, is outside the scope of this Hon’ble Court as it could not have it have extended it for a period beyond the final adjudication of the case by the Trial Court.
iv. It has been submitted by Mr. Rai that this Hon’ble Court has erred in proceeding with the matter on the basis that Petitioner No. 1 has been denied maintenance whereas the case was that Petitioner No. 1 had only been denied maintenance at interim stage.
3. This Court has heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondent and perused the material on record.
4. At the outset, this Court finds it pertinent to state that the embargo contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C., which prohibits the Court from altering or reviewing its judgement or final order disposing of the case, is inapplicable to an Order of maintenance passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Saving Clause contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C. entails that the rigour of the provision is relaxed in two conditions, i.e. save as otherwise provided by (i) the Code of Criminal Procedure or (ii) any other law for the time being in force.
5. In Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor and Ors., (2020) 13 SCC 172, the Supreme Court had observed that the legislature was aware that there were situations where altering or reviewing of criminal court judgement were contemplated in the Code itself or any other la
