Sunita Bhasin v. State Of NCT Of Delhi And ANR

$~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5305/2018 SUNITA BHASIN ..... Petitioner Through Mr. H.K. Dhariwal, Adv.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. Rizwan, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R D E R

% 18.05.2018 CM No.20577/2018 1.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 5305/2018 & CM No.20578/2018 2.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.8.2017 passed by the Senior Citizen Maintenance Tribunal (in short „Tribunal‟).

2.1 The Tribunal vide the impugned order has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent no.3 on 7th day of each calendar month.

3.

Respondent no.3 is the mother of the petitioner. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner‟s application for interim maintenance was rejected by the concerned Court vide order dated 27.2.2018 passed in CC No.513/2017. 5.

For this purpose, my attention has been drawn to annexure F, which is appended at pages 52 and 53 of the paper book. 6.

A perusal of the aforementioned order would show that respondent no.3 had filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C W.P.(C) 5305/2018

for grant of maintenance. Learned Judge after taking into account that the petitioner was getting pension @ Rs.4,500/- and was also being given a sum of Rs.350/- per month by her husband who had left her about 20 years back with the additional sums being paid by way of interim direction to the petitioner thought it not fit to entertain the application for interim maintenance.

7.

A close perusal of the order dated 27.2.2018 would show that the learned Judge took into account the fact that the petitioner at present was being paid in addition to the pension, a sum of Rs.5,000/- by virtue of the order passed by the Tribunal. 8.

Quite clearly, if the learned Judge was to agree with the petitioner, then the very basis for rejecting the petitioner‟s application for interim maintenance would vanish.

9.

Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that no interference is called for with the impugned order. It is accordingly dismissed.

10.

The petitioner is directed to clear all arrears towards payment of maintenance in consonance with the directions issued by the Tribunal. 11.

The needful will be done by the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 12.

The Registry will dispatch a copy of this order to the Tribunal as well as respondent no.3.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J MAY 18, 2018/rb W.P.(C) 5305/2018