VINOD KUMAR SIKKA Vs. VANDANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vandna alias Poonam (hereinafter to be referred to as the wife) and her daughter Baby Nanu a minor represented through her mother as the next friend brought a petition against Vinod Kumar Sikka (hereinafter to be referred to as the (husband) under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1913 (in short Cr. P.C.) for the grant of maintenance. The learned metropolitan Magistrate Shri Mahavir Singhal vide his order dated 3.6 1985 dismissed the petition of the wife but allowed maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month in favour of the daughter Baby Nanu from the date of the filing of the petition i.e., 12.4.1983.

(2.) Against the order of the learned Magistrate the wife and the daughter filed a revision petition which was decided by Shri J.B. Goel, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi vide his order dated 5.11.1985 and whereby the learned AddI. Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition regarding the claim for enhancement in maintenance by the daughter but the revision petition as far as it pertained to the claim of maintenance of the wife was allowed and the wife was granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month with effect from the date of the application i.e., 12. 4. 1983.

(3.) Now feeling aggrieved with the order of the learned AddI. Sessions Judge the husband has filed this revision under section 397 and 401 Cr. P.C. The order sheet dated 16.1.1986 goes to show that the revision petition was admitted by Charanjit Talwar J. only on the question of quantum of maintenance and he made it clear that so far as the decision of the learned AddI. Sessions Judge granting the maintenance to the wife was concerned, he agreed with that entirely.