Full Text
Translation output
$-18 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 22/2015 & CMNos.4024-25/2015
JAGDEV SAH
Appellant
Through Mr. Atishi Dipankar, Mr. B.K. Jha& Mr. Manoj Chaudhary, Advs.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 22/2015 & CMNos.4024-25/2015
JAGDEV SAH
Appellant
Through Mr. Atishi Dipankar, Mr. B.K. Jha& Mr. Manoj Chaudhary, Advs.
VERSUS
URMILA DEVI
Through Nemo
Through Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LS. MEHTA
04.03.2015 Respondent CM No.4025/2015 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed subjecttojust exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LS. MEHTA
04.03.2015 Respondent CM No.4025/2015 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed subjecttojust exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 22/2015 & CM No.4024/2015
Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 15.01.2015 passed by the Family Court (West). Feeling aggrieved by this order, the grievance raised by the appellant is that he has not preferred the matrimonial litigation wherein the said order has been passed. The same is simply a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.l0,15,200/- from his wife, the respondent herein deriving jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act.
Entailing the said case as amatrimonial litigation, the learned Family Judge
2015:DHC:11671-DB in compliance of directions given by this Court in Matrimonial Appeal
No.33/2010 titled Sangeeta Viz v. Sanjay Viz has directed the appellant to pay a sum ofRs.11,000/-towards litigation expenses.
Mr. Atishi Dipankar, counsel appearing for the appellantsubmits that the financial status of the respondent is much higher than that of the appellant and the appellant has already placed on record his affidavit in the other proceedings and so far the present case filed by the appellant was concerned the same being merely a recovery suit the appellant did not place on record the facts regarding his ownincome. Based on these facts, counsel submits that this Court may set asidethe said order dated 15.01.2015 which will unnecessarily burden the appellant to pay the said amount towards litigation expenses without the Court having considered the financial status ofthe respondent.
We are not inclinedto issue notice in the present petition as the order passed by the learned Family Court was atthe very threshold inthe absence of the respondent. At this stage, it will be suffice to direct the appellant to file his own affidavit before the learned Family Court giving details of his own income and that of the income of the respondent and on the filing of the same, the learned Family Court shall decide as to whether in the given circumstances there is any need to give direction for the payment of the litigation expenses by the appellant.
In the above circumstances, we set aside the order dated 15.01.2015 and give a fresh opportunity to the appellant to place on record his own affidavit in terms of the above directions and on the filing of the said affidavit the learned Family Court shall take a fresh view on the issue regarding award oflitigation expenses tobepaid by the appellant.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 22/2015 & CM No.4024/2015 stand disposed of in the above terms.
MARCH 04, 2015 km KAILAsirGAMBHIR, J
Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 15.01.2015 passed by the Family Court (West). Feeling aggrieved by this order, the grievance raised by the appellant is that he has not preferred the matrimonial litigation wherein the said order has been passed. The same is simply a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.l0,15,200/- from his wife, the respondent herein deriving jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act.
Entailing the said case as amatrimonial litigation, the learned Family Judge
2015:DHC:11671-DB in compliance of directions given by this Court in Matrimonial Appeal
No.33/2010 titled Sangeeta Viz v. Sanjay Viz has directed the appellant to pay a sum ofRs.11,000/-towards litigation expenses.
Mr. Atishi Dipankar, counsel appearing for the appellantsubmits that the financial status of the respondent is much higher than that of the appellant and the appellant has already placed on record his affidavit in the other proceedings and so far the present case filed by the appellant was concerned the same being merely a recovery suit the appellant did not place on record the facts regarding his ownincome. Based on these facts, counsel submits that this Court may set asidethe said order dated 15.01.2015 which will unnecessarily burden the appellant to pay the said amount towards litigation expenses without the Court having considered the financial status ofthe respondent.
We are not inclinedto issue notice in the present petition as the order passed by the learned Family Court was atthe very threshold inthe absence of the respondent. At this stage, it will be suffice to direct the appellant to file his own affidavit before the learned Family Court giving details of his own income and that of the income of the respondent and on the filing of the same, the learned Family Court shall decide as to whether in the given circumstances there is any need to give direction for the payment of the litigation expenses by the appellant.
In the above circumstances, we set aside the order dated 15.01.2015 and give a fresh opportunity to the appellant to place on record his own affidavit in terms of the above directions and on the filing of the said affidavit the learned Family Court shall take a fresh view on the issue regarding award oflitigation expenses tobepaid by the appellant.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 22/2015 & CM No.4024/2015 stand disposed of in the above terms.
MARCH 04, 2015 km KAILAsirGAMBHIR, J
ORDER
5. MEHTA, J