9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 1031X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld are concerned, the learned Judge said that the same was in far excess than which ought to have been given. 2. The facts of the case are that the Gaurav Sharda got married on 16th February, 2004. They were blessed with a son who was named Aryaman. It is alleged by the husband Gaurav Sharda that his wife lodged the false complaint with Gurgaon Police on 17th June, 2006 for physical beating given by Gaurav Sharda and his brother which ultimately culminated into filing an undertaking from Gaurav Sharda and the parents of the petitioner that they will not visit the matrimonial home. It is further alleged by the husband Gaurav Sharda that on 29th September, 2006 he was not allowed to enter the house and the respondent lodged a false complaint. On 18th November, 2006 respondent wife lodged an FIR under Sections 406/498A IPC at P.S. Gurgaon. On 5th December, 2006 Jyotsana Sharda filed a complaint under Section 23 of Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which is still pending. On 1st February, 2008 the JMIC, Gurgaon passed an order deciding the application of Jyotsana Sharda under Section 23 of Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 wherein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t from other matters pending in the Court of District Court Gurgaon transferred to Delhi. This is how the main matter of divorce etc. were transferred to AD SJ, Patiala House Courts, Delhi and the present revision petition bearing Nos. 132/2009 and 133/2009 filed by husband and the wife which have come to be assigned to the High Court. 6. I have been informed that as on date there are 10 cases pending between the parties in different forums and are highly contested. The intervention of the Court to settle the dispute between the parties amicably by referring them to Mediation and Conciliation Centre has also failed to yield any positive result. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The main contention of the learned Counsel for Gaurav Sharda is two-fold. Firstly, the contention of Mr. Lao is that the husband is earning approximately ₹ 40,000/- per month from which he has to repay the installments of loan in respect of the flat which is presently fully under the occupation of his wife Jyotsana Sharda though it is owned jointly by Gaurav and his mother and he has to maintain his parents also. Therefore, the gra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Judge, Gurgaon had also fallen into error by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and disposing of the same on merits. 11. The second submission which has been vehemently urged by the learned Counsel for Jyotsana Sharda was to the effect that the respondent Jyotsana Sharda is presently occupying the house No. 502, Tower-4, Shushant Estate, Sector-52, Gurgaon which admittedly was the property jointly owned by the Gaurav Sharda and his mother. It was contended that the Gaurav Sharda and his mother intended to go to the flat in question but are being restrained from doing so without their being the Court order. It was contended by the learned Counsel for Gaurav Sharda that Jyotsana Sharda may have a right of residence in the matrimonial home or in an accommodation owned by her husband or by the joint family of which her husband is a member, but she does not have any right to stay in a accommodation which is owned by her mother in law as she is not under any obligation to provide the residence to her. It was contended by the learned Counsel for Gaurav Sharda that he is ready to provide an accommodation to Jyotsana Sharda by hiring a premises to which she can shift wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt have considerably diluted this requirement of explaining each days delay by a party. The latest trend and the ratio cases which the Apex Court has laid down in the judgments is that the Court must adopt a liberal approach rather than pedantic approach while doing so. It must see the bonafides of the person who is preferring the appeal rather than seeing the quantum of delay which has been occasioned. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 1353 15. Coming back to the facts of the present case the quantum of delay which is occasioned in the instant case is just 52 days. The Jyotsana Sharda/wife has given her reason for delay as misplacing of the papers and lack of communication with the counsel. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected this explanation by observing that the explanation which has been given by the Jyotsana Sharda is contradictory and secondly Jyotsana Sharda had spoken to her counsel on telephone and got the appeal prepared afresh and got it filed in Court. With utmost respect to the impugned order I feel that it is not the job of the Court to advise as to what ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions Judge. The husband/Gaurav Sharda feeling aggrieved by the said order has preferred to challenge the same before this Court. A question was put to Gaurav Sharda as to how the present criminal revision petition by him is maintainable against the interim maintenance order passed in favour of his son which is in the nature of interlocutory order and which cannot be subject matter of revision petition because of the bar imposed by Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. 18. The learned Counsel for the husband/Gaurav Sharda has referred to the case titled Amarnath and Ors. v. State of Haryana AIR 1997 SC 2185 wherein it has been contended that any order which substantially effects the right of the accused or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar the revision petition to the High Court against the said order. 19. I have gone through the said authority no doubt the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amarnath's case has clearly laid down that any order which substantially affects the rights of the accused and decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order but if that principle is applied to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the petitioner is prepared to hire an accommodation and the wife Jyotsana Sharda may shift to the said hired accommodation while as the husband would continue to pay the rent and other charges for the essential amenities or alternatively it was contented that the petitioner Gaurav Sharda is even prepared to dispose of the said property and give one fourth share of the sale proceeds to Jyotsana Sharda for the purpose of hiring an accommodation rather than suffer the impugned order regarding rights of residence having been given to wife altogether as ordered by the learned Magistrate. 21. I have carefully considered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Gaurav Sharda. The learned Counsel has on the statement of the husband Gaurav Sharda provided the right of residence in the Sushant Estate flat of the husband which is also jointly owned by his mother. Jyotsana Sharda had got an FIR registered against the Gaurav Sharda and his other family members on account of threat to dispose of the flat and also on account of subjecting her cruelty with a view to demand dowry. It was in those proceedings that they had undertaken before the police that they would not go to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
