ABDUL KHALIQ Vs. RAZIA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Abdul Khaliq has filed the petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and order dated 23.01.2012 of learned Addl.Sessions Judge confirming the order dated 20.12.2010.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. At this juncture, the petitioner is aggrieved of the quantum of interim maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- granted to the respondent by the courts below. It reveals that earlier vide order dated 04.04.2009 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate granted maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- from the date of filing of the petition to the respondent. In Crl.Rev.No.13/2008, the order was modified and the petitioner was directed to provide monetary relief to the respondent @ Rs. 6000/- P.M. from the date of filing of the petition. Crl.Misc Case Nos.4246/2009 and 4375/2009 were filed before this Court by both the parties assailing the order dated 29.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Both the orders were set aside and the matter was remanded to pass order in accordance with law by order dated 04.10.2010. However, Abdul Rub and Abdul Khaliq were directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- jointly as maintenance to the respondent from the date of application till the order on merits was passed. Pursuant to the remand order, by the impugned order dated 22.12.2010, the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- p.m. to the respondent. The order was challenged in Crl.A.No.03/2011. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal by order dated 23.01.2012. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition. In response, the respondent claimed to enhance the maintenance amount from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 40,000/-.

(3.) The main petition is pending trial before the court below. Only by interim arrangement, the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent from the date of filing of the petition. Admittedly, the respondent is residing in a separate portion of the house in question. It is also not disputed that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law are taking care of her two children. Their expenses are also borne by them and other relatives. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate did not order Abdul Rub to pay any maintenance as he was bearing the expenses of her children. Income of the petitioner was assessed Rs. 50,000/- from the shop in his possession. There is controversy between the parties as to who is the owner of the shop in question bearing No.11, Meena Bazar. This aspect cannot be decided at this stage. However, it is a matter of record that after the death of respondent's husband in 2006 the shop in question, which is at present in occupation of the petitioner who is running his business there, was transferred in her name along with children. She is not getting any charges from the petitioner for its use and occupation. The petitioner has not placed on record any document to reflect income generated from the business being run in the said shop. Adverse inference is to be drawn against the petitioner for withholding material documents. The respondent has placed on record list of various cases instituted by the petitioner dragging her to unending litigation. The respondent, who is a widow having no independent source of income, is not expected to meet all her litigation expenses and to maintain herself with this interim relief.