CRL.REV.P. 161/2018 Page 1 of 14

$~13

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on:04.08.2022

Pronounced on:18.08.2022

+

CRL.REV.P. 161/2018

SUNITA & ANR.

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate

versus

VIJAY PAL @ MOHD. SABIR & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr S.K. Dayal, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1.

The present Revision Petition has been filed, challenging the

impugned order dated 22.09.2017 passed by learned Principal Judge,

Family Court in MT-22/2015 and praying to set aside the same,

whereby maintenance application filed by the Petitioner was dismissed

on the ground of res judicata.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between

petitioner no.1 and respondent no.1 was solemnized in the year 1990

and the parties last resided together up to January 1996. Two children

were born from the wedlock; a son who has attained majority and a

minor daughter. Since the time of separation, the parties have been

involved in multiple litigations. Out of which one such case was filed

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003122

CRL.REV.P. 161/2018 Page 2 of 14

under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in MT-22/2015. The Petition by means of

the second petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. prayed to direct the

Respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month in favour of

Petitioner no. 1 and also to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month in

favour of the Petitioner no. 2. Further by means of the Petition the

Petitioners prayed for the Court to award Rs. 55,000/- towards

litigation expenses in favour of the Petitioners. However, the said case

was dismissed on the ground of res judicatavide the impugned order

dated 22.09.2017 on the ground that prior to the filing of the said

petition, the Petitioner along with her two children had filed petition

Bearing No. 289/1996 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the court of

ACJM, Gurgaon, Haryana which was decided vide order dated

16.04.1999 allowing each of the three petitioners (in the 1996 petition)

a sum of Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance.

Submission of the Learned counsels

3.

It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that on the

date of filing of the present petition before the learned Trial Court, the

petitioner was entitled to file a fresh petition as there was a fresh cause

of action. He further argued that on the date of filing the present

petition before the learned Trial Court, the petitioner was not receiving

any maintenance as ordered on 16.04.1999 by the learned ACJM,

Gurgaon, the principle of res judicata was not attracted in the facts

and circumstances of this case. He further argues that the claimants, if

necessary, can file separate claims for maintenance each month. It is

argued that vide order dated 16.04.1999 maintenance was granted only

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003122

CRL.REV.P. 161/2018 Page 3 of 14

from the date of filing of the said claim petition. It was nowhere

mentioned in the said order that it shall operate either for future or till

further orders. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that it cannot be presumed to be operating beyond the date

of decision of the Maintenance Petition No. 279/1996. It was stated

that petitioner was entitled in law to claim monthly maintenance post

January 2015. Section 127 Cr.P.C. is not the proper recourse, since the

maintenance period claimed in the maintenance petition filed on

07.01.2015 was for claiming maintenance from January 2015

onwards. The observations made