Full Text
Translation output
$-20 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 24/2015
VIPUL KUMAR ROHILLA
Appellant
Through: Mr.K.S.Rana, Advocate.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 24/2015
VIPUL KUMAR ROHILLA
Appellant
Through: Mr.K.S.Rana, Advocate.
VERSUS
MEENAKSHI
Respondent
Through
Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LS.MEHTA
11.03.2015 C.M.No.4449/2015 (Exemption)
Exemption granted, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LS.MEHTA
11.03.2015 C.M.No.4449/2015 (Exemption)
Exemption granted, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 24/2015 and C.M.No.4448/2015 (stay)
By this appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, the appellant seeks to challenge the order dated 28.01.2015 whereby the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, after recording the statement of one
Mr.A.K.Rai from LIC tothe effect that whatever amount ofcommission will
2015:DHC:11674-DB come in the account of the appellant as LIC Agent, directed that the same be attached and the said amount shall be deposited in the Bank account number ofthe respondent/decree holder.
Assailing the said order dated 28.01.2015, Mr.K.S.Rana, counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Family Court has committed a grave illegality in passing the impugned order as it has not taken care of protecting at least one third portion of the income of the appellant in terms of Section 60(1) of the CPC. Counsel further submits that by directing attachment of the entire income of the appellant which will come in his account as LIC agent, the learned Trial Court has deprived the appellant his own sustenance. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly admittedthat an amount of Rs.5 lacs is outstanding towards the maintenance amount, which the appellant has failed to pay. Another fact which the counsel for the appellant has admitted is that the order of maintenance dated 12.09.2011 was challenged by the appellant, but without any success, meaning thereby that the said order dated
12.09.2011 became final between the parties.
In the said order dated 28.01.2015, the learned Trial Court has fixed the amount of maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month and while fixing the said amount of maintenance, the total income of the appellant was taken at
Rs.18,000/- per month. After taking the said income of the appellant into consideration, the learned Trial Court fixed the said amount of Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance which amount comes even lower than one- third of the incomeofthe appellant. The plea raised by the appellantthat the learned Trial Court could not have given direction for attachment of the entire income of the appellant, is not available to him as the entireincome of the appellant was assessed at Rs.18,000/- per month, out of which the maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- was awarded in favour ofthe respondent.
The appellant is reckless and in fact has committed defiance in complying with the direction given by the learned Family Court and deprived the respondent from the maintenance amount, resulting into accumulation of huge arrears of Rs.4-5 lacs. In such circumstances, the respondent had no other option but to seek execution of the maintenance amountby filing the execution petition.
We do not find anything wrong or perverse in the direction given by the learned Trial Court to attach the entire amount of the appellant which is earned by him as LIC Agent. However, we will make it clear that once the appellant is able to satisfy the total outstanding amount of the arrears towards maintenance, certainly his liability towards arrears of maintenance amount have come to an end.
In the light of above, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
MARCH 11, 2015 'dc' A ICAILASH GAMBHIR, J smEHTA, J
By this appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, the appellant seeks to challenge the order dated 28.01.2015 whereby the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, after recording the statement of one
Mr.A.K.Rai from LIC tothe effect that whatever amount ofcommission will
2015:DHC:11674-DB come in the account of the appellant as LIC Agent, directed that the same be attached and the said amount shall be deposited in the Bank account number ofthe respondent/decree holder.
Assailing the said order dated 28.01.2015, Mr.K.S.Rana, counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Family Court has committed a grave illegality in passing the impugned order as it has not taken care of protecting at least one third portion of the income of the appellant in terms of Section 60(1) of the CPC. Counsel further submits that by directing attachment of the entire income of the appellant which will come in his account as LIC agent, the learned Trial Court has deprived the appellant his own sustenance. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly admittedthat an amount of Rs.5 lacs is outstanding towards the maintenance amount, which the appellant has failed to pay. Another fact which the counsel for the appellant has admitted is that the order of maintenance dated 12.09.2011 was challenged by the appellant, but without any success, meaning thereby that the said order dated
12.09.2011 became final between the parties.
In the said order dated 28.01.2015, the learned Trial Court has fixed the amount of maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month and while fixing the said amount of maintenance, the total income of the appellant was taken at
Rs.18,000/- per month. After taking the said income of the appellant into consideration, the learned Trial Court fixed the said amount of Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance which amount comes even lower than one- third of the incomeofthe appellant. The plea raised by the appellantthat the learned Trial Court could not have given direction for attachment of the entire income of the appellant, is not available to him as the entireincome of the appellant was assessed at Rs.18,000/- per month, out of which the maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- was awarded in favour ofthe respondent.
The appellant is reckless and in fact has committed defiance in complying with the direction given by the learned Family Court and deprived the respondent from the maintenance amount, resulting into accumulation of huge arrears of Rs.4-5 lacs. In such circumstances, the respondent had no other option but to seek execution of the maintenance amountby filing the execution petition.
We do not find anything wrong or perverse in the direction given by the learned Trial Court to attach the entire amount of the appellant which is earned by him as LIC Agent. However, we will make it clear that once the appellant is able to satisfy the total outstanding amount of the arrears towards maintenance, certainly his liability towards arrears of maintenance amount have come to an end.
In the light of above, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
MARCH 11, 2015 'dc' A ICAILASH GAMBHIR, J smEHTA, J
JUDGMENT