Friday, November 1, 2013

Ablaa WIFE already making moolah in civil case of sec 125 CrPC cannot make MORE moolah using DV !! Milking the husband once is enough , don't try too many times (or is this decision now set aside ?? )



ablaa WIFE already making moolah in civil case of sec 125 CrPC cannot make MORE moolah using DV !! Milking the husband once is enough , don't try too many times (or is this decision now set aside ?? ) 

Notes
****************
Ablaa naari separate since 1996
Making monthly mollah on an earlier order
Now tries DV for more moolah
Shri Shiv Narain Dhinghra dismisses the case !!


*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family Foundation. SIF is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
 
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON / PUBLIC WEB SITE(S) 
******************************************************************



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: August 25, 2010
Date of Order: 30th August, 2010
Crl.M.C.No. 130/2010 & Crl.M.A.No. 504/2010


30.8.2010



Rachna Kathuria ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. P.Narula, Advocate

Versus

Ramesh Kathuria ... Respondent
Through:Mr. S.S.Saluja, Advocate

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.

JUDGMENT

By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has assailed an order dated 22nd October 2009 of learned Additional Sessions Judge passed in appeal whereby the appeal of the
petitioner was dismissed.

2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short the Act) and along with it she filed an application under Section 29 of the Act seeking maintenance. The learned Court of MM observed that petitioner was living separate from her husband since 3rd January, 1996. She had filed a Civil Suit under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and she was getting a total maintenance of ` 4000/- per month from the respondent. In case the petitioner felt that maintenance awarded to her was not sufficient, the proper course for her was to approach the concerned Court for modification of the order as already observed by the High Court in a petition filed by her earlier and the application was dismissed. Against this petitioner preferred an appeal. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal and the petitioner has preferred this petition. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ 

3. It must be understood that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not create any additional right to claim maintenance on the part of the aggrieved person. It only puts the enforcement of existing right of maintenance available to an aggrieved person on fast track. If a woman living separate from her husband had already filed a suit claiming maintenance and after adjudication maintenance has been determined by a competent court either in Civil Suit or by Court of MM in an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. she does not have a right to claim additional maintenance under the Act. The Court of MM under the Act has power to grant maintenance and monetary reliefs on an interim basis in a fast track manner only in those cases where woman has not exercised her right of claiming maintenance either under Civil Court or under Section 125 Cr.P.C. If the woman has already moved Court and her right of maintenance has been adjudicated by a competent Civil Court or by a competent Court of MM under Section 125 Cr.P.C., for any enhancement of maintenance already granted, she will have to move the same Court and she cannot approach MM under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act by way of an application of interim or final nature to grant additional maintenance. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ 

This petition is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed. 

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

August 30, 2010



*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/  FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
  
  
regards
  
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist