Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1991 OF 2008
[arising out of SLP [Crl.] No.1370 of 2008]
Manu Khanna (Minor) through his ……… Appellant
mother Dr. Poonam Khanna
Vs.
V. P. Sharma & Anr. …… Respondents
O R D E R
Leave granted. Heard the parties.
2. The appellant is the minor son of first respondent and
Dr. Poonam Khanna. He is represented by his mother. While
the appellant’s mother claims that the appellant is
mentally challenged, the respondent denies it. The
appellant filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for maintenance. In the said
proceedings, the learned Magistrate by his order dated
26.6.2006 directed the first respondent to pay interim
maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the appellant.
2
3. The appellant challenged the order of the learned
Magistrate by filing a Criminal Revision Petition before
the High Court. The appellant contended that the sum of
Rs.5,000/- per month was inadequate and the interim
maintenance should be higher. A learned Single Judge of the
High Court by the impugned order dated 9.7.2007 considered
the matter in detail and found no reason to interfere with
the order of the learned Magistrate fixing Rs.5,000/- per
month as interim maintenance. He directed that the main
petition itself should be proceeded with and disposed of by
the learned Magistrate expeditiously, preferably within
four months from that date. By subsequent order dated
16.11.2007, the time for disposal was extended upto
31.1.2008. The orders of the High Court are challenged by
the appellant.
4. The appellant’s mother, who appeared in person,
submitted that the quantum of interim maintenance is
inadequate both from the point of view of the need of the
appellant and the income of the respondent. On the other
hand, the respondent contended that the determination of
Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance was proper and
adequate. But nevertheless, he offered to pay Rs.7,500/-
3
per month subject to the final decision in the pending
proceedings, to put an end to the issue. On the facts and
circumstances, we are of the view that the said payment
will be adequate and appropriate as interim maintenance.
5. The respondent submitted that the issue of visitation
right so as to enable him to spend time with his son, is
pending and that issue may be linked and considered with
this issue. The appellant’s mother contended that no such
issue is pending. It is unnecessary to examine that
question as that is not the subject matter of this appeal.
6. Though the order of the High Court was passed more
than one year and five months ago, it is stated that the
main matter is still pending before the learned Magistrate.
If the parties had co-operated with the learned Magistrate,
as directed by the High Court, the main matter itself would
have been over by now. During arguments, the mother of the
appellant (representing the appellant) and the father of
the appellant displayed considerable acrimony towards each
other and put forth contentions which are unnecessary to
decide a simple interim maintenance issue. They also tend
to bring in extraneous issues. The learned Magistrate shall
deal with any request for adjournment sternly and restrict
4
the parties strictly to the issue at hand, to ensure that
the main case is completed at least by 31.3.2009.
7. We therefore dispose of this appeal by increasing the
interim maintenance to Rs.7,500/- per month from 1.12.2008
till final decision in the pending proceedings before the
learned Magistrate. Both the parties shall extend full co-
operation for the early disposal. It is made clear that the
amount determined is purely as an interim measure and the
learned Magistrate will decide the main maintenance
petition without being influenced by any observation made
by the High Court or this Court on the issue of the interim
maintenance.
__________________J.
(R. V. Raveendran)
New Delhi; ___________________J.
December 5, 2008. (D. K. Jain)