SHAM SUNDER ARORA Vs. STATE OF U T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Petitioner-Sham Sunder Arora, against whom order of payment of 50,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to Ms. Rohni Arorarespondent No.2 was passed by the Magistrate, has come up with the present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order dated 15.4.2010 passed by Shri G.C.Garg, Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, in Criminal Revision No. 11 of 2010, filed against the said maintenance order, vide which he directed the petitioner to pay a sum of ` 2.20 lakhs over and above the amount of ` 1.80 lakhs; which was ordered to be paid, as per the order dated 11.2.2010, while staying the execution of the order of maintenance. Though in this petition, the prayer has been made by the petitioner for setting aside this order, yet at the time of arguments, he confined his prayer for setting aside of only that part of the order, vide which the petitioner was directed to pay ` 2.20 lakhs over and above a sum of ` 1.80 lakhs.

(2.) That part of the order on the face of it is an abuse of the process of the court. The following order was passed on 11.2.2010 by the said Additional Sessions Judge:- File has been taken up today on the application moved by revisionist. In the said application, it is stated that the revision petition, after deducting the days spent for taking certified copy is well within period of limitation. So, in these circumstances, the revision petition is ordered to be registered. Arguments on the application for stay of execution is being heard. The amount of Rs. 50,000/- as interim maintenance has been allowed by the learned court from July 2008. The execution of interim maintenance is stayed till next date subject to deposit of Rs. 1,80,000/- by the revisionist before the trial court. Of course, the learned trial court will recall its order dated 21.1.09 with regarding issuance warrants of attachment/arrest. File be put up on the date fixed.

(3.) The impugned order was passed just after two months. The revision petition was not adjourned on account of any fault of the petitioner and it was on account of the fact that another revision filed against the same order granting interim maintenance was filed by respondent No.2 and both the revision petitions were ordered to be heard together to avoid conflicting decision. After the Additional Sessions Judge had stayed the execution of the order, subject to deposit of ` 1.80 lakhs, he could not have arbitrarily passed the impugned order just after two months and that too in the absence of any application on behalf of the respondent in this regard, directing the petitioner to pay ` 2.20 lakhs over and above the amount already paid to the respondent.