AMIR KAPOOR Vs. NISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having recourse to every conceivable legal remedy available under the law, the parties who happen to be husband, wife and their minor son, are now before this Court in the instant civil revision instituted by the disgruntled husband.

(2.) Heard Mr. S.K. Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner and perused the records of the case. Admittedly marriage between Amit Kapoor present petitioner and Nisha respondent No.1 was solemnized on 4/5/2003 out of which respondent No.2 Master Harshit was born to them on 10/9/2004. It is on account of matrimonial dispute that arose between the spouses led to filing of a criminal case under Ss. 498, 323, 406 IPC; a complaint under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; maintenance application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. and it was by virtue of a petition under Sec. 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by a decree of divorce dtd. 28/5/2015 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad the marriage stood dissolved. But in spite of the same, the battle between them did not subside and proceedings under Sec. 127 Cr.P.C. were invoked by the husband as well as the present petition by way of civil revision whereby challenge is sought to be laid to orders dtd. 26/10/2018 (Annexure P1) in respect of appeal (Annexure P2) and orders dtd. 31/5/2018 (Annexure P3) on application dtd. 24/5/2018 (Annexure P4) were passed in an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC read with Sec. 151 CPC whereby the husband had sought an injunction against the wife and which stood dismissed.

(3.) Appreciating the submissions of the counsel, what the husband is trying to seek in the suit (Annexure P5) is a mere declaration and mandatory injunction with consequential relief of permanent injunction for a decree that judgment and order dtd. 26/8/2010 is an outcome of fraud and so the other petitions under the cruelty to married women; maintenance and alteration in the maintenance allowance including proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 have been termed to be misuse of the process of Court. The judgment and order dtd. 26/8/2010 (Annexure P11) is passed in an application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance allowance whereby maintenance allowance has been granted to the wife and the minor child by the Court of learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad. Under the relevant provisions of Cr.P.C., only a revision lies under Sec. 397, 398 and 399 Cr.P.C. and which has not been assailed of nor brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner and therefore, mere challenging such a finding in a civil suit certainly is not permissible in view of the well enunciated law that recourse has to be laid to the provisions enshrined under the law and since the statute provides a remedy to challenge this order, the same needs to be followed which the petitioner has failed to do so.