Final Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. SAMEER BAJPAI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-3 (SHAHDARA)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Crl. Appeal No. 236/2023
Sh. Manish Kumar
S/o Sh. Shiv Kumar
R/o 1/2923, Ram Nagar
Post Office Wali Gali, Gali no.3,
Shahdara, Delhi-11003
...Appellant
V E R S U S
Smt. Komal
D/o Sh. Rajendra Singh
W/o Sh. Manish
R/o B-2/472, Gali no.23,
Harsh Vihar, Delhi-110093. ...Respondent
Date of Institution : 30.01.2024
Date of reserving order : 29.05.2024
Date of pronouncement : 05.06.2024
Decision : Appeal dismissed
ORDER
1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant against the order
dated 07.11.2023 as passed by the court of Ld. MM (Mahila Court
Crl Appeal. No. 236/2023 Manish Vs. Komal Page 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
no.03), Shahdara District, KKD Court, Delhi in the Ct. Case
No.909/2023 titled as Komal Vs. Manish.
2. In the impugned order, the Ld. Trial Court directed the
appellant to pay Rs.6000/- per month to the respondent herein as ad-
interim maintenance.
3. It is noted that in the appeal, the ld. Counsel for the appellant
has just copied the complaint as filed by the complainant (the
respondent herein) before the Ld. Trial Court and therefore it is
practically not possible to note as to what the appellant is submitting.
The court gave a choice to the ld. Counsel for the appellant to
withdraw the appeal and file a fresh one, giving correct narration of
facts but the ld. Counsel submitted that the appeal be decided
considering the impugned order and the trial court record.
4. For clarity it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant
portion of the impugned order as under:
“…..Both the parties are directed to file their
updated income by the next date of hearing
with advance copy to the opposite side
against receiving.
Income and asset affidavit and three
years bank account statement of petitioner is
already filed.
DIR perused.
Crl Appeal. No. 236/2023 Manish Vs. Komal Page 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
In view of the lack of sharing of
same household, let R-7 be deleted from
the array of the parties.
Other respondents shared the same
household at one point of time or the other.
Specific allegations have been levelled
against R-2 to R 6 as well.
Let, R-2 to R-6 be summoned
through SH0, PS concerned for the next date
of hearing.
Upon inquiry R-1 submits that
currently he is doing a private job and
earning Rs. 15-16,000/- per month.
It is a matter of record that
petitioner has a young child of aged around
4.5 year alongwith her and she is stated to be
dependent on her parents for her
maintenance as well as maintenance of her
child. It is not disputed by R-1 that he is
father of child and being the father, it is the
sacrosanct duty of R-1 to maintain his child.
Therefore, R-1 is directed to pay ad-interim
maintenance in the sum of Rs. 6,000/-per
month to the petitioner qua the maintenance
of the child either in cash against receiving
through online mode from the date of filing
of application seeking interim maintenance
moved on behalf of the petitioner till the
decision the application... ”
5. The Trial Court record shows that on 01.07.2023, the Ld.
Trial Court called DIR from the protection officer and issued notice to
respondent no.1 (appellant) for 07.11.2023. On the said date the
Crl Appeal. No. 236/2023 Manish Vs. Komal Page 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
respondent no.1 appeared with his counsel and further the DIR was
also filed on this date. The ld. Trial court then allowed the respondent
no.1 (appellant) to file written statement within 30 days from the date
of receipt of the petition and also directed the parties to file their
updated income and assets’ affidavit as per the latest guidelines along
with ITR/bank details of the last three years. As the respondent no.1
was present in the court, the Ld. Trial Court made inquiry and the
respondent submitted that he was doing a private job and earning
Rs.15-16,000/- per month. The Ld. Trial Court considered the
submission of the respondent (appellant herein) and the fact that the
petitioner (respondent herein) had a child aged about 4.5 years and
thus, directed the respondent (appellant herein) to pay Rs.6000/- as ad-
interim maintenance to the petitioner qua the maintenance of the child.
6. Although the appellant herein did not file any reply to the
complaint before the Ld. Trial court and the Ld. Trial court considered
granting of interim maintenance for the child only on the oral inquiry
from the appellant herein, but to the mind of this court, the Ld. Trial
Court did not commit any error and rightly awarded the amount of
Rs.6000/- for the child only on the submissions of the appellant herein
that he was earning Rs.15,000/- to 16,000/- per month. It is noted that
in the impugned order, the Ld. Trial court has already fixed the matter
for completion of pleadings and arguments on interim maintenance
Crl Appeal. No. 236/2023 Manish Vs. Komal Page 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
and as such the interim maintenance for the petitioner shall be decided
and the maintenance for the child shall also be considered afresh.
7. In view of the facts as discussed above, the Court sees that
there is no need to interfere in the impugned order as the same is
absolutely justifed. The court finds no merits in the appeal and the
same is hereby dismissed.
8. Trial Court Record be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court along
with copy of the order.
Appeal file be consigned to record room.
(Sameer Bajpai)
Addl. Sessions Judge-03
Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts,
Dated: 05.06.2024
Crl Appeal. No. 236/2023 Manish Vs. Komal Page 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --