@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
M.L. Singhal, J.@mdashPriyal is minor daughter of Dr. Pradeep Kumar Kamboj and Dr. Nirupama wife of Dr. Pradeep Kumar Kamboj. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Kamboj is residing in United States of America. Priyal (minor) through her maternal grand father attorney of Dr. Nirupama made an application u/s 125, Cr.P.C. (Application No. 15 of 11.10.1999) in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh against her father Dr. Pradeep Kumar Kamboj for the grant of maintenance. Vide order dated 5.9.1992, the Magistrate granted Rs. 500/- per mensem to the child as interim maintenance against her father. As per Shri Harkishan Lai Chopra, who is the maternal grand father/ attorney of minor''s mother Dr. Nirupama, Dr. Pradeep Kumar Kamboj never engaged Narotam Kaushal, Ms. Manjula Kaushal or Mr. R.B.S. Chahal, Advocate for filing Criminal Revision No. 739 of 1992 against the order passed by Shri Jagdip Jain, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh. Filing of Criminal Revision No. 739 of 1992 was fake was challenged through Criminal Misc. No. 5230/M of 1994 (titled Priyal V. Pradeep Kumar Kamboj). Dr. Pradeep Kumar Kamboj and his Counsel Mr. Narotam Kaushal and Ms. Manjula Kaushal and others have rendered themselves liable for criminal prosecution by this Court for their filing fake power of attorney, false sworn affidavit, etc. in Criminal Revision No. 739 of 1992 under Sections 420/468/471/474, IPC etc. Shri Narotam Kaushal had filed a fake application for cancellation of the interim ex parte order Without any authority when Dr. Pradeep Kumar Kamboj was in the U.S.A. Through this Criminal Misc. No. 22411 of 1998 filed by Priyal (Minor) daughter of Dr. Pradeep Kumar Kamboj, she has prayed that the order dated 24.3.1998 passed by this Court be modified as the same was obtained by fraud and dishonesty practised on this Court. She has prayed for the recall and modification of the order dated 24.3.1998 and by way of consequential relief this Court may pass a speaking order and hold a judicial enquiry under Article 235 of the Constitution of India for determination of the legality and propriety of the proceedings by Shri Darshan Singh, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh in defiance of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in
2. The dated 24.3.1998 passed by Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J. in Criminal Misc. No. 21049/M of 1998 reads as follows :
"Notice is not yet served on Dr. Nirupama and Harkishan Lal Chopra. They are not appearing in this case for the last so many dates. Even when the notice was ordered to be issued to them, they are not appearing. No body is representing the petitioner in this petition. This petition is pending since 1996.
Father of the petitioner has given an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the Registrar of this Court to be deposited in some Nationalised Bank in the name of the minor-petitioner to be paid to her towards her maintenance.
Respondents'' contention is that the interest from this amount can be withdrawn by the minor-petitioner towards her maintenance and the remaining amount be given to her when she attains majority. Learned Counsel further submits that the respondent-father has already deposited Rs. 26,000/- in the treasury to be paid to the minor towards her maintenance. She has claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. Respondent has also deposited few thousands subsequently. Now he has paid Rs. 50,000/- towards her maintenance, as indicated above
In view of the above facts, this petition is disposed of with the direction that Rs. 50,000/- depbsited with the Registrar be now deposited in some Nationalised Bank in the name of the minor-petitioner showing her mother as a guardian with a direction that the interest accruing every month be given to the minor through her guardian for her maintenance and Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid to the minor when she attains majority.
Copy of the order be also sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh for information and necessary action."
3. The grievance of Shri Harkishan Lal Chopra, maternal grand father of the minor child Priyal and attorney appointed by her mother Dr. Nirupama against the order dated 24.3.1998 is that this order was passed by the Court without the minor child or her natural guardian or her Counsel having been heard. Minor child''s natural guardian/attorney appointed by her natural guardian or the Counsel was not present on 24.3.1998 before the Court and the Court should have appointed some Court guardian for the minor child so as to look after the interest of the minor child.
4. Order dated 24.3.1998 passed by this Court cannot be sustained as the same was not passed by the Court after hearing the minor or her natural guardian or the attorney appointed by her natural guardian or her Counsel.
5. The object of the order dated 5.9.1992 passed by the Magistrate granting interim maintenance to the minor child was only to obtain Rs. 500/- per mensem for the upkeep and maintenance of the child. This maintenance was allowed with effect from the date of the filing of the application u/s 125, Cr.P.C In the order dated 24.3.1998 it is indicated that father of the child has given an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the Registrar of this Court to be deposited in some Nationalised Bank in the name of the minor petitioner to be paid to her towards her maintenance.
6. Mr. R.B.S. Chahal, Advocate appearing for Dr. Pradeep Kumar Kamboj, respondent contended that interest from this amount can be withdrawn by the minor towards her maintenance and the remaining amount be given to her when she attains majority. It was also submitted by him that the respondent/father had already deposited Rs. 26,000/- in the treasury to be paid to the minor towards her maintenance. She has claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per mensem. The respondent has also deposited few thousands subsequently. Now/he has paid Rs. 50,000/- towards her maintenance as indicated above. In the order it was indicated that Rs. 50,000/-deposited with the Registrar shall be deposited in some Nationalised Bank in the name of the minor showing her mother as guardian with the direction that interest accruing on it every month be given to the minor through her guardian for her maintenance and Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid to the minor when she attains majority.
7. The grievance of the minor child through her maternal grand father Shri Harkishan Lal Chopra and attorney appointed by her mother Dr. Nirupama is that Mr. R.B.S. Chahal, Advocate, had not been appointed as Counsel by Dr. Pradeep Kumar Kamboj. He had never executed any Vakalatnama in his favour in U.S.A. He had never sent any Vakalatnama executed by him in his favour in U.S.A. He never came to India when he is said to have executed the Vakalatnama either in favour of Mr. R.B.S. Chahal, or in favour of Narotam Kaushal and Ms. Manjula Kaushal, Advocates.
8. On behalf of the minor child, it has been submitted that Dr. Pradeep Kumar Kamboj should have appeared before the Court in criminal revision. It was also submitted that it is his duty to maintain the child and the neglect of the child by him should land him in jail.
9. The order dated 24.3.1998 is held to be not sustainable and is accordingly ignored as the same was passed without minor child''s natural guardian or her Counsel having been heard. It will be determined in Criminal Revision No. 739 of 1992 whether the same had been filed by a duly authorised person on behalf of Dr. Pradeep Kumar Kamboj or not. The question of proceeding against those who are found to have filed that revision without any authorisation by Dr. Pradeep Kumar Kamboj will arise thereafter. If it is found that there was lack of authority in them to file that criminal revision, the Magistrate will not issue warrant for the recovery of the amount of maintenance having accrued in favour of the minor child so far to the concerned Court in United States of America through Ambassador of India in the United States of America (Indian Embassy). If Dr. Pradeep Kumar Kamboj fails to send the desired amount to the Court of the Magistrate concerned, the Magistrate will proceed thereafter in accordance with the law. If he sends the desired amount to the Court, he will not land himself in jail. Object of provision is only to coerce the respondent to make payment. Provision does not; desire any pound of flesh. The amount finding mention in the order dated 24.3.1998 will keep lying in the name of the minor child and the interest accruing thereon every month will continue to be paid to the minor through her guardian for the maintenance.
10. Criminal Misc. No. 22411 of 1998 stands disposed of.
