MANISH TANDON Vs. ANKITA BHUTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 13.02.2017 passed by the learned District Judge (Family Court), Sonepat whereby two applications filed by the petitioner (referred to as the 2nd application and 3rd application in the impugned order) have been decided.

(2.) It is to be noted that there is a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the respondent. Proceedings in FIR No.6 dated 12.02.2012 under Sections 498A/406/420/323/506/34 IPC lodged at the behest of the respondent are pending. The respondent - wife filed a petition (bearing No.133 of 2012) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.12.2012. Thereafter another petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (i.e. wherefrom the present proceedings emanate) was filed by the respondent. It is stated that the respondent's application for grant of interim maintenance in the second petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the learned District Judge (Family Court), Sonepat on 10.05.2016.

(3.) The petitioner moved an application dated 17.12.2016 under Order 23 CPC (Annexure P3, referred to as the 2nd application in the impugned order) for dismissal of the petition filed by the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. being not maintainable on the ground that once her earlier petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was dismissed as withdrawn without any specific liberty having been afforded to the respondent to file afresh, a second petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Another application (Annexure P4, referred to as the 3rd application in the impugned order) was filed by the petitioner under Order 18, Rule 17 CPC and Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act for recalling and reexamining one of his own witness RW1 Mr. B.M. Pandey.