No Interim Maintenance to the wife if she is Educated and earning similar Salary to husband

IN THE COURT OF MS. RAJ RANI MITTRA: ASJ – 03 : SOUTH – EAST,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI

Criminal Revision No.34/11

Harsh Lata Aggarwal,
Presently R/o 144,
Madhuvan,Delhi­92
….. Revisionist

V E R S U S

1 Vijay Kumar,
S/o Jagdish Raj,
R/o 169­C, DDA Flats,
Shahpur Jat, New Delhi­49

2 Sh. Jagdish Raj
S/o Sh. Gian Chand Suri,
R/o 492, JB­1A, Second Floor,
Gupta Colony, Khirki Extension, New Delhi.
….. Respondents

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 20.07.2013
DATE OF ORDER: 04.09.2013

O R D E R

1 The present revision petition U/s 397 and 399 Cr. P.C. has been filed against the order dated 13.06.2008 passed by Ld. Trial Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, refusing to take cognizance of an offence U/s 341/34 IPC and application dated 14.08.2007 of petitioner U/s 302 Cr. P.C. to engage a counsel for prosecuting her case.

2 It is submitted by the revisionist that on 17.07.2005 at 7.15 AM the respondent Vijay Kumar had beaten the revisionist mercilessly in presence of his father and maid Parvati and had thrown her out of the house (H. No. 492, Second Floor, Chirag Delhi, Delhi­110017). The revisionist had then come to her parents house (H. No. 144, Madhuvan, Delhi­110092). That she had also informed her relatives at Ambala, Chandigarh and Panchkulla, who came and met respondent Vijay Kumar in the evening alongwith her father in his office and a second meeting was agreed to be held to sort out the matter and that instead of holding a meeting the respondent Vijay Kumar filed a suit dated 25.07.2006 for permanent injunction to restrain the revisionist from entering her matrimonial home. However, the application was dismissed by Ld. Civil Judge at Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and instead passed an order that the revisionist could even break open the lock if her entry was restrained. That on 27.07.2005 revisionist went to her matrimonial home in the morning to get some papers and articles, but respondents Vijay Kumar and Jagdish Raj, his father and his mother (since deceased) did not allow her to enter in the house even in presence of police. The revisionist wrote a report addressed to SHO P.S. Malviya Nagar. Sheikh Sarai, requesting to register a case U/s 341 IPC for investigation and further action. Ultimately, a case U/s 341 IPC was registered vide FIR No. 848/06 on 17.07.2006 at P.S. Malviya Nagar and charge sheet was prepared and filed on 04.10.2006. An application for condonation of delay was also filed by Asstt. Public Prosecutor on 07.07.2007 and impugned orders were passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate on 13.06.2008 thereby dismissing the application U/s 478 Cr. P.C. dated 07.07.2006. Hence the present petition.

3 Trial Court record was summoned.

4 It is submitted by revisionist that the Ld. Trial Court has committed material irregularity in only considering the grounds mentioned by the investigating officer and not seriously considering the explanation given by the revisionist. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the delay in filing of charge sheet be condoned. 5 No one had appeared on behalf of revisionist or the respondent to argue the matter.

I have gone through the revisionist petition along with Trial Court record.

7 Chapter XXXVII of Cr. P.C. chalks out limitation for taking cognizance of offences. Section 468 provides bar to taking cognizance after lapse of period of limitation.

8 Section 341 IPC provides punishment for wrongful confinement – Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a terms which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extended to one thousand rupees, or with both. Under section 468 (3) (b) Cr. P.C. period for limitation is one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and as per Section 469 Cr. P.C. the period of limitation commences on the date of offence. Thus, in the case in hand, the offence was alleged to have taken place on 27.07.2005 and charge sheet was filed by the investigating officer on 04.10.2006. Therefore, Ld. Trial Court has correctly dismissed the application of the State, which was filed after lapse of period of limitation.

8 The revisionist petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground that it was application of State U/s 473 Cr. P.C. which was dismissed and the State has not come in appeal against the impugned order.

Although, nothing has been stated by the revisionist qua her application U/s 302 Cr. P.C., yet keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case the same was correctly dismissed by Ld. Trial Court as being infrutuous. There is no merit in the revision petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.

9 Trial Court record be sent back along with a copy of the order. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Announced in the open Court on 4th day of September, 2013

(RAJ RANI MITTRA)
Addl. Sessions Judge­03/SE Saket Courts, New Delhi.