SH VIJAY SINGH YADAV Vs. RAJESH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr. P. C. against the order dated 07. 4. 2008 passed by Ms. Kiran Bansal, MM, Delhi in M. P. No. 372/3/03 u/s 125 of cr. P. C. directing the petitioner herein to pay an interim maintenance @rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent no. 1 w. e. f. December, 2003 till the disposal of the main petition.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are not in dispute except the quantum of earnings of the petitioner. It is admitted by the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 smt. Rajesh Yadav is his wife. It is admitted that the marriage took place between the parties on 26. 2. 1973 and from the said wedlock, they were blessed with two sons namely Sameer Yadav and Goldi Yadav. It is also not in dispute that from 1993 onwards, the respondent no. 1 was living separately along with her sons. The respondent no. 1 Smt. Rajesh Yadav has made allegations that she was forced to live separately on account of demand of dowry by the petitioner herein and that she does not have any independent source of income and accordingly, chose to file the petition for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. for herself and her two sons. The learned Magistrate as early as on 24. 11. 2003 has directed the petitioner herein to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent till November, 2003. Somehow this resulted in prolonged litigation initiated by the petitioner by way of filing revisions as a consequence of which said order of payment of interim maintenance could not be complied with and only a sum of Rs. 1 lac has been paid in these proceedings which has been accepted by the respondent no. 1 herein without prejudice to the rights and contentions on 13. 5. 2009 that is after a lapse of almost six years.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been stated in the impugned order to be an able bodied person and having 42 Killas of land while as his holding of agricultural land is stated to be much less. It has been stated that his income has been taken to be rs. 30,000/- per month from the land in question as against that he is earning only a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to 15,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the report of the Patwari showing his holding to the extent of 34 Kanal 17 Marlas.