SHEKHAR PANDEY Vs. GEETA PANDEY
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Click here to view full judgement.
A.K.SIKRI, J. -
(1.) Smt. Geeta Pandey was married to Sh. Shekhar Pandey (hereinafter referred to as the 'husband') on 7.2.1999. One son master Gautam was born out of this wedlock on 15.11.99. Unfortunately, this matrimonial alliance was not successful and the couple was separated from each other on 17.5.2002. Master Gautam is with his mother since then. Both mother and son (hereinafter called the 'complainants') filed petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 24.7.2002 against the husband. Learned MM passed order dated 25.9.2003 fixing interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- for Smt.Geeta Pandey and Rs.2,000/- per month for master Gautam. The husband filed revision petition against this order. Vide judgment dated 7.1.2004 the learned Addl. Sessions Judge reduced the maintenance to Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,000/- per months respectively. Both the sides are aggrieved against this judgment. The husband filed Crl.M.C. No. 1194/2004 for further reduction in the interim maintenance awarded. On the other hand, the complainants have filed Crl.M.C. No.4013-14/2004 challenging the order on the ground that the reduction in maintenance by the learned ASJ is wrong and the order of the learned MM be restored. This is how both the petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common order.
(2.) It is reiterated that the order passed is for interim maintenance and the evidence is yet to be led by both the parties. The learned MM came to prima fade conclusion, on the basis of documents placed on record, that the husband was earning at least Rs. 25,000/- per month even on conservative estimates. Reading of this order would further disclose that the complainant had stated that her husband was running business under the name and style M/s. Harsh Industries, Though this business was initially a partnership firm of Sh. Gopal Dutt Pandey, father of Shekhar Pandey and some other person, the said partnership was dissolved after the retirement of other partner and became sole proprietorship concern of Sh. Gopal Dutt Pandey. Thereafter, Sh. Gopal Dutt Pandey transferred the rights in this business in favour of Shekhar Pandey. Telephone was installed in the business premises, which was in the name of M/s. Harsh Industries whose proprietor was shown as Chand Shekhar Pandey and on this basis the complainant had stated that business was transferred in the name of Shekhar Pandey.
(3.) Order of the learned MM would further show that though it was accepted that after the dissolution of the partnership firm, Sh. Gopal Dutt Pandey became the sole proprietor, it was denied that he had transferred this business in the name of Shekhar Pandey. On the contrary, the case of the husband was that his parents have disowned him from their properties and he is working with Kuldeep Automobiles and getting Rs.2,700/- per month as salary. Letter issued by some one in Kuldeep Automobiles is also produced in support of the plea that he was doing job there and getting salary of Rs.2,700/- per month.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.