CRL.REV.P. 588/2018

Page 1 of 32

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 21^st December, 2021

Pronounced on: 28^th January, 2022

+

CRL.REV.P. 588/2018, CRL.M.A. 12593/2018 & CRL.M.A.

13141/2021

MOHD SHAKEEL @ SHAKEEL AHMED

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Salim Malik and Ms. Shavana,

Advocates

versus

MST SABIA BEGUM & ORS

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Aditya Gaur, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

J U D G M E N T

(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1.

The instant Petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter “Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the

Revisionist/Petitioner (hereinafter “Petitioner’) seeking setting aside of

the Order dated 3^rd April, 2018, passed by the learned Judge, Family

Court, North-East, Karkardooma, Delhi whereby the Petitioner was

directed to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- per month to

Respondent No. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- to Respondents No. 2 and 3, each till

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000330

CRL.REV.P. 588/2018

Page 2 of 32

attaining the age of maturity, alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.

11,000/-.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2.

It has been alleged by the Respondents that the marriage between

Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 was solemnized in January, 1994,

according to Muslim rites and ceremonies. Respondents No. 2 and 3 were

born out of their wedlock. Prior to her marriage with the Petitioner, the

Respondent No. 1 was married to one Likayat Ali and had four children

out of that wedlock, namely, Danish, Monish, Sanah and Farah. It has

been alleged that the Petitioner accepted the children of Respondent No.1

and gave his name as their father in the school records.

3.

The Petitioner along with Respondents and said four children were

residing together at their matrimonial house at Khajoori Khas, Delhi.

However, due to disputes between the first wife of the Petitioner and

Respondent No. 1, the Petitioner purchased a separate property at

Ziauddinpur, Delhi and started living there alongwith the Respondents.

4.

Subsequently, due to certain matrimonial issues between the

parties, the Petitioner stopped paying maintenance to the Respondents

and aggrieved by the same, Respondent No.1 filed maintenance petition

for herself and Respondents No.2 and 3 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

before the

learned Judge, Family Court, North-East District,

Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

5.

The Petitioner in his Written Statement dated 29^th February, 2008,

to the Petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., denied his marriage to

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000330

CRL.REV.P. 588/2018

Page 3 of 32

Respondent No. 1 and the birth of Respondents No. 2 and 3 from the

wedlock of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1. However, Respondent

No.1 refuted the allegations of the Petitioner and agreed to carry out a

DNA test for Respondents No.2 and 3. The learned Trial Court vide order

dated 5^th November, 2014, allowed the commission of the test subject to

cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the Petitioner. However, the test was not

carried out for unstipulated reasons.

6.

Following witnesses were examined on behalf of the Respondents

before the learned Trial Court:

Witness Name

Examined

as

Relevant part of the depositions

Mst. Sabia Begum

(Respondent No. 1)

PW 1

Alleged that her marriage was

solemnized with the Petitioner.

Tendered

her

affidavit

and

produced photographs of marriage.

(Ex. PW1/1- PW1/7).

Deposed that the marriage was

performed before a Qazi and a

Nikahnama was prepared but it is

in possession of the Petitioner.

The nikah took place at the

Petitioner’s

house

and

only

Respondent’s mother was there.

Produced her ration card (Ex.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000330

CRL.REV.P. 588/2018

Page 4 of 32

PW1/8) wherein the Petitio