9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence. The object of Section 397 CrPC is to settle a patent defect or an error in exercising jurisdiction or if the order is perverse and no court would come to such a conclusion. The orders have been passed in an application for interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act. Matrimonial proceedings are still pending between the parties. The findings of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate as upheld by the learned Sessions Court is that the petitioner was not provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is directed against the order dated 28.04.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, South-East, Saket District Courts, Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 204157/2016. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 14.05.2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Courts, South East, Saket, Delhi in an application titled as Gyatri Mohan v. Taron Mohan Ors. for claiming interim maintenance under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act. 2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to this revision petition are:- a) The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 15.12.2002 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. b) After marriage, the respondent/wife was inducted as a whole time Director in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company. The Company Law Board allowed the petition and directed the company i.e. Mobisoft Telesolutions Pvt. Ltd. to pay the salary to the respondent from 30.09.2009 to 30.12.2011. h) The petitioner thereafter moved an application under Section 25 of the Domestic Violence Act seeking for a modification of the order dated 14.05.2011 claiming that the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance from 30.09.2009 to 30.12.2011 for the reason that the respondent is now getting Rs. 2,00,000/- per month as salary from 30.09.2009 to 30.12.2011 as directed by the Company Law Board. i) The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by an order dated 29.07.2013 in CC No. 426/3 rejected the application for modification on the ground that the quantum of m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 64,96,910/- for assessment year 2010-2011 and Rs. 52,74,052/- for assessment year 2011-2012 and Rs. 45,07,331/- for assessment year 2012-2013. After making deductions for the tax paid his earnings were Rs. 45,16,908/-, Rs. 37,25,650 and Rs. 31,97,912 for the year 2010, 2011, 2012 respectively. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate also noted that after proceedings were initiated between the parties, the income of the petitioner started decreasing and probably it was an attempt made by petitioner to hide his real income. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate therefore rejected the argument of the petitioner that Rs. 2,00,000/- per month being given as salary to the respondent from 30.09.2009 to 30.12.2011 would allow her to maintain the same li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 14.05.2011 deserves to be set aside. He further states that once the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had came to the conclusion that the order of the Company Law Board directing Mobisoft Telesolutions Pvt. Ltd. to pay the salary of the respondent from 30.09.2009 to 30.12.2011 amounts to change in circumstance then the logical conclusion would be to modify the order of maintenance to hold that the petitioner is not liable to pay maintenance of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month to the respondent from 30.09.2009 to 30.12.2011. 7. On the other hand Mr. Joel, learned counsel for the respondent would state that four courts have upheld the order awarding maintenance of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The order dated 14.05.2011 of the learned Metropolitan Magistra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same order in revision. 9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 CrPC gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
