(1.) VIDE order dated 23.09.2011, this Court has passed the following order:- Further submits that vide an order dated 01.07.2011, the learned MM has closed the Prosecution Evidence, thus, the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses was closed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition, wherein, the learned ASJ, vide order dated 18.08.2010 has made following observations in relevant paragraphs:- 11. As reflected from the impugned order, on 01.07.10 the proxy counsel for present petitioner sought an adjournment despite the fact that on previous date adjournment had been allowed subject to cost of .2,000/-. Upon non payment of that cost and failure to seek time to comply, there was no option with the learned magistrate but to decline the adjournment request and close right of the present petitioner to cross examine PW1. Despite repeated queries learned counsel for petitioner could not point out any illegality or incorrectness or impropriety in the order passed by learned magistrate and there is no fourth ground on which revisional jurisdiction can be invoked under Section 397 Cr.P.C. 12. Further, conduct of the present petitioner in refusing to pay even the admitted amount of interim maintenance also calls for dismissal of the present petition in view of the judgment in the case of RAJIV PREENJA (supra). I do not agree with argument of learned counsel fthat the said judgment is not relevant since the same pertained to a challenge against interim maintenance and since in the said case the lady had not been paid a single penny. For, it is the spirit of that judgment that needs to be kept in mind; in the said judgment, Honble Delhi High Court cautioned the revisional courts not to succumb to the dilatory tactics of husband to drag on the proceedings without paying the due interim maintenance and frustrate the weaker section of society. Further submits that initially the interim maintenance was granted @ Rs.15,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the respondent has in fact re-married and the second husband/respondent has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, Undisputedly, the respondent had married on 17.04.2007 at Delhi according to the Hindu rights and rituals and with the consent of parents with Mr. Satya Nam Shukla, s/o Late Sh. Hari Shanker Shukla, R/o Village Pure Kinhouli, P.S. Masuuli, Tahseel Ram Nagar, District Barabanki. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that as per the order passed by learned MM, till the re-marriage of respondent i.e. 17.04.2007, he is ready to pay the total amount. It is submitted that he has brought the Demand Draft No. 775218 drawn on SBI, dated 02.05.2011 in the name of respondent, which is returned to the applicant after being seen.
(2.) I note that the impugned order dated 01.07.2010 was passed by ld. MM due to the reason that the petitioner time and again sought adjournment, which was allowed subject to cost of Rs.2,000/-. The second ground was that since the petitioner has not paid the cost, due to this reason, the adjournment sought was rejected and the right of the respondent to cross-examine PW-1 was closed.
(3.) DURING arguments, ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has not paid maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- per month w.e.f 08.04.2005 to 10.07.2010.