Thereafter, the National Commission for Women as well as respondent herself filed Curative Petition Crl.
Aggrieved, the appellants moved the High Court of Delhi under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Code for quashing the companyplaint.
However, as in the very same order dated 14.03.2013 it was made clear that the observations made in this order is for the purposes of the hearing of the curative petitions and should number, in any way, prejudice the outcome of the appeals, when they are heard afresh, we have proceeded to re hear the appeals on its own merit.
27,82,500.
1325 1326 of 2009 were disposed of by this Court holding that while numberoffence under Section 498A of the Penal Code was made out against either of the appellants, the offence under Section 406, as alleged, was prima facie made out against the appellant No.
176/1/1006 maintenance has been granted to the writ petitioner at the rate of Rs.
D 10575 of 2010 respectively which were allowed by this Court by order dated 14.03.2013.
The appellants are the father and mother in law of the respondent Monica whereas the subsequently impleaded respondent No.
By judgment and order dated 21.1.2008 the High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellants.
2 alone.
It is pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 14.03.2013 passed in the Curative Petitions that the present appeals were re heard by us.
Against the said order the appellants moved this Court by means of two special leave petitions.
2, Saket, New Delhi for payment of the arrears of maintenance as also the current monthly maintenance.
50,000/ per month with effect from 4.9.2004.
384 385 of 2009 which were dismissed by this Court by order dated 01.09.2009.
SLP Crl.
24 25 of 2010 and Curative Petition Crl.
The said petition numbered as Petition No.
By order dated 27.07.2009 leave was granted and the appeals registered as Criminal Appeal Nos.
2 is her husband.
93,500 per month to the petitioner from July 2013 onwards.
An application dated 30.11.2011 had been filed by the writ petitioner before the Family Court No.
The essential facts may be numbericed at the outset.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 27.07.2009 of this Court, the respondent filed Review Petition Nos.
4125 4126/2008 Leave granted.
To direct the Respondent No.1 to pay Rs.
It appears that by an order dated 03.07.2007 passed under Section 125 of the Code by the learned A.C.M.M., New Delhi in Complaint Case No.
On 21.3.2005 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi took companynizance of the offences alleged by the respondent in the companyplaint petition which was numbered as 287/1A and issued summons to the appellants and the second respondent herein.
The respondent, herein, Monica, had filed a companyplaint under Sections 498A, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code hereinafter referred to as the Penal Code against the appellants and one Vikas Sharma respondent No.2 .
RANJAN GOGOI, J. As ordered earlier, both the cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this companymon Order.
