LAWS(DLH)-2019-5-300

ISHANT NAGPAL Vs. POOJA NAGPAL & ANOTHER

Decided On May 31, 2019
Ishant Nagpal Appellant
V/S
Pooja Nagpal And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.Rev.P. 279/2017 & Crl.M.A.6291/2017 (stay), Crl.M.A.11416/2017 (for directions), Crl.M.A.11417/2017 (filed on behalf of the petitioner for not taking on record few of documents of Annexure R-3), Crl.M.A.20785/2017 (for directions)

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is two folds. Firstly, that the Trial Court did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the respondents, at the time of the filing of the petition, were residing in Fatehabad and secondly, that the trial Court has erred in not correctly appreciating the income of the petitioner and has awarded interim maintenance far in excess of the income disclosed by the petitioner. Further it is contended that petitioner had to shut down his business for attending to litigation in Delhi and has taken up an employment @ Rs. 15,000/- per month.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the respondents at the time of the filing of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. were residing at Vinobhapuri, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi and even presently are residing at the said address and as such the Trial Court had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.