MANISH TANDON Vs. ANKITA BHUTANI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 11.5.2018 passed by the Family Court, Sonipat dismissing his objection filed to the execution application of the order dated 9.8.2017 which has attained finality.

(2.) In brief, respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short 'the Cr.P.C.'] against the petitioner for maintenance which was allowed by the Family Court, Sonipat on 09.08.2017 and direction was issued to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 w.e.f. 2.3.2013 and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. Aggrieved against the order dated 09.08.2017, the petitioner preferred CRR (F) No.440 of 2017 before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 31.10.2017 categorically observing that the interim order dated 10.5.2016 by which the maintenance application was dismissed has no bearing on the order dated 09.08.2017 because it was passed at the initial stage when the parties were yet to lead their evidence but the order dated 09.08.2017 has been passed after taking into consideration the evidence brought on record. It was also observed that the finding recorded by the Family Court in the order dated 09.08.2017 is based on correct appreciation of facts and evidence and no fault can be found with its approach. It is also observed that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. was rightly dismissed by the Family Court. Besides this, this Court has further observed that the amount of Rs. 5000/- per month is not on a higher side, especially in the present scenario of high rise in the cost of living. Ultimately, it was observed that there is no illegality or perversity in the order dated 09.08.2017.

(3.) Although, the petitioner has not mentioned in the writ petition that he had challenged the order dated 31.10.2017 passed by this Court, upholding the order dated 9.8.2017, before the Apex Court but during the course of hearing, he has admitted that the SLP filed against the order dated 31.10.2017 has also been dismissed. Hence, the issue regarding the validity of the order dated 9.8.2017 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 5000/- per month as maintenance to respondent No.1 w.e.f. 2.3.2013 came to an end with no further possible challenge.