High Court of DelhiCRL.REV.P./538/2016

Sunil Malhotra v. Rashmi Malhotra

2016-08-17Hon'Ble Mr. Justice P.S.Teji2 pages

$~64 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.REV.P. 538/2016 SUNIL MALHOTRA ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Alok Bhachawat and Mr.Udayveer Singh, Advs.

versus RASHMI MALHOTRA ..... Respondent Through Nemo.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

O R D E R

% 17.08.2016 Crl.M.A. 12704/2016 (Exemption) Application is allowed subject to just exceptions. Crl.Rev.P. 538/2016 & Crl.M.A. 12703/2016 (Stay) Arguments heard.

Counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 07.07.2015 passed by the Court below vide which the application under Section 25(2) of the Domestic Violence Act for modification of order dated 28.05.2010 was dismissed.

Perusal of file shows that after passing the order dated 28.05.2010, the petitioner went in an appeal in which one order was passed on 14.09.2010 allowing the application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter the Court below passed an order dated 26.08.2011 vide which the appeal was finally disposed of. Thereafter,

another application under Section 25 of the Domestic Violence Act for modification of order dated 28.05.2010.

On 18.05.2012, the learned MM directed the petitioner to appear and to bring an amount of Rs.50,000/- on the next date of hearing. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act against the order dated 18.05.2012. The said appeal was disposed of on 04.10.2012.

The present petition has been filed with the request to stay the operation of order dated 28.05.2010.

It appears from the record that the petitioner has been moving the applications on one pretext or the other and even approached this Court vide Crl.M.C. 3642/2012. The matter is not proceeding with for one reason or the other. Admitted position is that the application was filed by the respondent for the grant of maintenance in the year 2010 and it is matter of pity that still the application under the Domestic Violence Act is not taking finality. In the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the order dated 28.05.2010. However, the Trial Court is directed to decide the application filed by the respondent under the Domestic Violence Act as expeditiously as possible. The present petition is accordingly disposed of. P.S.TEJI, J AUGUST 17, 2016 dd