Shri Rahul Sethi vs Smt. Varsha Sethi and Another

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.—This is a revision against the order dated 05.03.2011 passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, whereby, an amount of maintenance allowance of Rs. 3,000/- per month (i.e. Rs. 1500/- each to both the Respondents) along with Rs. 5,500/- as expenses for litigation has been ordered to be paid.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, while impugning the said judgment, contends that the Petitioner is aggrieved with the grant of allowance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the Respondent-wife and the minor son as the same has been granted from the date of the application which should not have been done as the Petitioner had been regularly paying the interim maintenance granted from the date of the application. Secondly, the Respondent/complainant-wife did not ask for the litigation expenses but in spite of the same, the Court below had granted Rs. 5,500/- as expenses.

Heard.

Admittedly, the revision petition has been dismissed. The second revision being barred u/s 397(2) Code of Criminal Procedure the Petitioner cannot file the present petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure under the garb of second revision petition. No doubt, it is well settled proposition of law that power u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised even if the revision has been dismissed, only to stop the perpatuating of injustice or in case of misuse of the process of law. No such ground has been pointed out in the present case. Hence, the discretionary power u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked in the facts of the present case when the revision petition already stands dismissed.

Even on merits, there is no case. During the pendency of the petition u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial Court, the Respondent No. 1 had filed an application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the grant of maintenance pendente lite for herself and her son. The High Court vide order dated 24.05.2007 fixed an amount of Rs. 1500/-as monthly maintenance to be paid by the Petitioner for the Respondents. Meanwhile, the interim maintenance u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed by the District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad vide Order 10.11.2009 and Rs. 1000/- to the Respondent-wife and Rs. 1500/- to the minor son was granted.

Thereafter, petition u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed vide order dated 05.03.2011 passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad and the amount granted as interim maintenance to the wife was enhanced by a meager amount of Rs. 500/- i.e from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 1,500/-while the maintenance granted to the son was not enhanced.

Thus, the argument that the same should be only from the date of order and not from application, has no merit as the amount enhanced, while finally adjudicating the petition u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure is only Rs. 500/-. He has been already paying Rs. 2500/- from the date of application. Thus, the arrears are only to be calculated at the rate of Rs. 500/-, which is not much.

As per the findings recorded by the Family Courts, Faridabad, the Petitioner is a practicing lawyer since 2003 and also doing the business of finance besides receiving rental income. As such, nothing has been pointed out to show that the said order is arbitrary, unfair or in anyway contrary to law.

The Respondent-wife is granted maintenance for her day to day living. The extra expenditure towards litigation expenses has been rightly granted. There is no ground to interfere with the same.

No other ground is raised.

Dismissed.