MAULANA SALEEM Vs. TAMIZAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.05.2012 wherein while disposing off a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.PC, the Family Court Judge had directed the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs.3,500/ - per month which would be effective from January, 2012; for earlier periods i.e. from the date of filing of the petition which was on 16.04.2007 up to 31.12.2009, the petitioner had been directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.1,500/ - per month and w.e.f. 01.01.2010 up to 31.12.2011, he had been directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.3,000/ - per month.

(2.) THE allegation of the complainant -wife was that the petitioner is running a furniture showroom at D -1/B, Rana Pratap Road, New Delhi; it had been noted that this version had remained unchallenged and uncontroverted even in the cross -examination. The petitioner had in fact admitted in his cross -examination that he owns this showroom at D -1/B, Rana Pratap Road but his business is not doing well these days. It was in this background that the Court had fixed income of Rs.15,000/ - per month qua the petitioner.

(3.) OF the application seeking condonation of delay of 197 days. It is reproduced herein as under: -