SHEIKH RAZIUDDIN Vs. BABY TANZILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is filed by the petitioner assailing an order dated 29.04.2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on an application filed by the respondent, minor daughter of the petitioner through her mother, filed under Section 127 of the Cr.PC, seeking alteration of the monthly allowance being paid by the petitioner to her, in terms of an earlier order dated 22.04.1999, recording the compromise arrived at between the parties. As a result of the compromise, the earlier petition for maintenance filed by the respondent through her mother under Section 125 of the Cr.PC was disposed of in view of an undertaking given by the petitioner that he would pay a sum of Rs.500/- per month to the respondent as maintenance from the date of filing of the petition, till she attains majority or till the time she gets married, whichever is earlier.

(2.) On enquiry from the counsel for the petitioner as to why he has filed the revision petition in this Court directly without approaching the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he states that the petitioner had preferred a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, registered as CR No.49/2010, but he withdrew the same with liberty to assail the impugned order in this Court in view of the fact that he was confronted with a judgment entitled Rajeev Preenja vs. Sarika & Ors. reported as 2009(159) DLT 616, whereunder a Single Judge of this Court has directed that when a revision petition is filed by the respondent in the court of the learned ASJ, against an order of interim maintenance passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate in favour of the wife, the said revision petition shall not be entertained, till the entire amount of interim maintenance due under the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate upto the date of filing of the revision petition, is deposited in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order in the present case shows that it is not one passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., but passed under Section 127 of the Cr.PC, whereunder the respondent has sought alteration of the monthly allowance already fixed between the parties. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has paid to the respondent, the uptodate maintenance @ Rs.500/- on a monthly basis and that apart, the petitioner is paying a sum of Rs.1 lac per year to the mother of the minor respondent in terms of the order dated 29.08.2009 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on a petition filed by the mother of the respondent under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 for Mehr, maintenance and return of property. He states that in all, a sum of Rs.9 lacs was directed to be paid as a lump sum payment for maintenance to his wife for the period of nine years, i.e., from the date she got a divorce in the year 1996 till she solemnised her third marriage in the year 2005. He states that the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order before this Court in a revision petition in which, he has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.6 lacs out of the sum of Rs.9 lacs, which has been so deposited by him. He further volunteers to deposit before the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the revision petition, proposed to be filed by him at least 50% of the arrears payable to the respondent calculated @ Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application. Apart from the aforesaid amount, the petitioner shall also pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of passing of the impugned order, till the interim application he proposes to file before the learned Additional Sessions Judge is disposed of one way or the other.