Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2011 DIGILAW 1254 (SC)

Meena Chaudhary v. Commissioner Of Delhi Police

2011-09-23

ANIL R.DAVE, D.K.JAIN

body2011
ORDER IAs Nos. 7-8 of 2011 in CAs Nos. 8439-40 of 2009 By these applications, the appellant prays for the following reliefs: “(a) pass an urgent and interim order for a maintenance and a residence for the appellant in her suitable amount of matrimonial home; (b) pass an order to secure the compliance by Respondent 4 by confiscating his passport and his current CPL (Commercial Pilot Licence); (c) pass an order for sentence against Respondent 4 for contempt of this Hon'ble Court;” We have heard the appellant, who appears in person, as also the learned counsel appearing for the contesting Respondent 4. In our view, the present applications are utterly misconceived for more than one reason. Firstly, Prayer (a), which is sought as an interim relief, is the core issue to be determined in the main appeals, which already stands admitted. Therefore, grant of this relief at this juncture would render the main appeals as redundant. Secondly, Prayers (b) and (c) above, both these issues do not arise for consideration in the main appeals. The scope of an interim application cannot be greater in scope than the main appeal. Additionally, over and above the afore-extracted reliefs, the appellant has also prayed for certain other directions in her rejoinder-affidavit. Ex facie, the said prayers are also beyond the scope of the main appeals and, therefore, cannot be granted. Accordingly, both the applications, being bereft of any merit, are dismissed. At this stage, it is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for Respondent 4 that Suit No. 51 of 2008, which had given rise to the present appeals, has since been dismissed by the Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 21-9-2011, passed in CC No. 619 of 2001. Let the said order be placed on record by way of an application, supported by affidavit, with advance copy to the appellant. If considered necessary, the appellant may file reply to the said application. IAs Nos. 9-10, 11-12, 13-14 and … of 2011 in CAs Nos. 8439-40 of 2009 List the applications along with the main matter.