Full Text
Translation output
I
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 116/2014 &CMNo.16056/2014
SHRIRAKESH
Appellant
Through Mr. Darshan Paliwal, Adv.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 116/2014 &CMNo.16056/2014
SHRIRAKESH
Appellant
Through Mr. Darshan Paliwal, Adv.
VERSUS
SMT. SAROJ Through Respondent in person.
CORAM;
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
04.02.2015 Respondent Vide orders dated 03.12.2014, this matter was sentto the Delhi High
Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre onthe request made bythe parties that they are willing to explore the possibility ofan amicable settlement by taking recourse to mediation. As per the mediation report, the mediation proceedings ended innon-settlement.
Mr. Darshan Paliwal, counsel for the appellant, challenging the order dated 21.07.2014 passed by the learned Family Court, submits that the learned Family Court has neither taken into consideration the income certificate placed on record by the employer of the appellant nor any reasons were disclosed for discarding the said documentary evidence.
Counsel further submits that the learned Family Court has also not appreciated that even the wife of the appellant is also working and, therefore, is not entitled to the grant any interim maintenance. Counsel also
2015:DHC:11655-DB submits that the Trial Court has not taken into consideration that the wife of the appellant is more educated and therefore she is capable of earning and maintaining herself Learned counsel for the appellant in the course of arguments has not disputed the fact that the maintenance of Rs.5,000/- was also fixed in D.V. Act proceedings and the order passed in D.V. Act proceedings was not challenged by the appellant. The learned Family Court in the impugned order took a view thatconsidering the fact that intheD.V.
Act proceedings the interim maintenance has been fixed at the rate of
Rs.5,000/- permonth, sothesame can befixed intheapplication filed bythe respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Having not challenged the said order of maintenance passed in D.V. Act proceedings, we are of the view that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting any interference. Even inthereply filed bythe appellant to the application under Section 24, the contention raised byhim was that since an order of maintenance fixing the rate at Rs.5,000/- was passed in the D.V.
Act proceedings, the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance on this ground.
We find no merit in the present appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.
FEBRUARY 04, 2015 km KAILASH GAMBHIR, J RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW, J
2015:DHC:11655-DB
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
04.02.2015 Respondent Vide orders dated 03.12.2014, this matter was sentto the Delhi High
Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre onthe request made bythe parties that they are willing to explore the possibility ofan amicable settlement by taking recourse to mediation. As per the mediation report, the mediation proceedings ended innon-settlement.
Mr. Darshan Paliwal, counsel for the appellant, challenging the order dated 21.07.2014 passed by the learned Family Court, submits that the learned Family Court has neither taken into consideration the income certificate placed on record by the employer of the appellant nor any reasons were disclosed for discarding the said documentary evidence.
Counsel further submits that the learned Family Court has also not appreciated that even the wife of the appellant is also working and, therefore, is not entitled to the grant any interim maintenance. Counsel also
2015:DHC:11655-DB submits that the Trial Court has not taken into consideration that the wife of the appellant is more educated and therefore she is capable of earning and maintaining herself Learned counsel for the appellant in the course of arguments has not disputed the fact that the maintenance of Rs.5,000/- was also fixed in D.V. Act proceedings and the order passed in D.V. Act proceedings was not challenged by the appellant. The learned Family Court in the impugned order took a view thatconsidering the fact that intheD.V.
Act proceedings the interim maintenance has been fixed at the rate of
Rs.5,000/- permonth, sothesame can befixed intheapplication filed bythe respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Having not challenged the said order of maintenance passed in D.V. Act proceedings, we are of the view that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting any interference. Even inthereply filed bythe appellant to the application under Section 24, the contention raised byhim was that since an order of maintenance fixing the rate at Rs.5,000/- was passed in the D.V.
Act proceedings, the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance on this ground.
We find no merit in the present appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.
FEBRUARY 04, 2015 km KAILASH GAMBHIR, J RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW, J
2015:DHC:11655-DB
JUDGMENT