Full Text
Translation output
t\,{
I
3# o/oLO.LO.2OLL
Present: Mr. Daleep Dhyani for the appellant.
Mr. Dinesh Garg for the respondent.
+MAT APP No. 6O/2O10 & CM No' 18281/2O10
*
The appellant is present in the court. lle states that he is not in a position to make payment of the interim maintenance to the respondent as directed by this court vide order dated 9.5.2011.
Let the statement of the appellant be recorded.
Counsel for the respondent on instructions from the father of the. respondent who is present in the court has seriously refuted the stand taken by the appellant in his statement. Counsel submits that he has made a false statement before this court as he is a self employed person running two workshops at Gokulpuri, Delhi. Counsel submits that the appellant is in the habit of not making the timely payments to the respondent towards the interim maintenance. Counsel also submits that one male child born out of the wedlock of the parties is presently studying in 1't standard.
Counsel submits that the respondent and the child are practically on the road of starvation as both of them have been deprived t
2011:DHC:15012
\5
{ from the maintenance amount as granted by the learned trial court for the past about one and a half years.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The respondent has already moved an application under Section 24 rlw Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance for a sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m. towards her own maintenance and Rs.5,000/- p.m. towards the maintenance of the minor child. ln the application filed by the respondent it has been stated that the appellant is a man of means and is running two workshops under the names and style of M/s Y.Y. Engineering
Works and M/s Shri Krishna Enterprises located in Chaudhary
Compound, Gokulpuri, Delhi. The respondent has also stated that from the said two workshops the appellant has been earning not less than Rs,50,000/- p.m, lt has also been stated that the appellant resides in a self owned three storeyed house bearing
No. D-98, Gali No. 4, Ganga Vihar, Delhi. The respondent has further stated that the appellant is maintaining a Santro Car bearing no. DL 2CW 5245 and also owns a mobile phone bearing no, 9810246848 and a landline phone bearing no. 22564903.
These averments made by the respondent in the application with regard to the financial status of the appellant have been denied
T
Ib t by the appellant in para 7 of his reply to the said application. To the question posed by this court the appellant has admitted that he is having a mobile phone bearing no. 9810246848. Surprisingly, the appellant in para 7 of his reply has even denied having a mobile phone bearing the said number, but today in the court he has admitted that he owns the mobile phone bearing no. g8L0246848. ln para 8 of his reply the appellant has claimed that he is doing work on daily wages but he has not disclosed as what kind of work he is doing and what wages he is earning from the said work. On the perusal of the said reply filed by the appellant and the sta.tement made by him today in the court, especially the reply given by him with regard to owning a mobile bearing NO. 9810246848, it is quite evident that the appellant is not only dishonest but has the audacity to lie blatantly before this court in para 7 of the said reply filed by him in response to the application of the respondent under Section 24 rlw Section 26 of the Hindu
Marriage Act. lt is thus quite apparent that that the appellant has not been paying the maintenance amount to the respondent willfully and intentionally thus forcing the respondent and the minor child to lead the life as that of destitutes. The appellant is not even concerned about his minor child who is studying in 1't
T
T
\" standard and it is the respondent alone who is bearing all his educational expenses with the support of her father. Vide order dated 9.5.2011, pending consideration of the maintenance application moved by the respondent, this court directed the appellant to continue paying an amount of Rs.2,500/- p.m. to the respondent which amount was fixed by the learned trial court during the pendency of the divorce proceedings. The appeilant was also directed to pay the entire arrears of the maintenance amount, but the appellant defaulted in making the said payments.
Looking into the dishonest conduct of the appellant, he does not deserve any hearing in the present appeal filed by him challenging the
I
3# o/oLO.LO.2OLL
Present: Mr. Daleep Dhyani for the appellant.
Mr. Dinesh Garg for the respondent.
+MAT APP No. 6O/2O10 & CM No' 18281/2O10
*
The appellant is present in the court. lle states that he is not in a position to make payment of the interim maintenance to the respondent as directed by this court vide order dated 9.5.2011.
Let the statement of the appellant be recorded.
Counsel for the respondent on instructions from the father of the. respondent who is present in the court has seriously refuted the stand taken by the appellant in his statement. Counsel submits that he has made a false statement before this court as he is a self employed person running two workshops at Gokulpuri, Delhi. Counsel submits that the appellant is in the habit of not making the timely payments to the respondent towards the interim maintenance. Counsel also submits that one male child born out of the wedlock of the parties is presently studying in 1't standard.
Counsel submits that the respondent and the child are practically on the road of starvation as both of them have been deprived t
2011:DHC:15012
\5
{ from the maintenance amount as granted by the learned trial court for the past about one and a half years.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The respondent has already moved an application under Section 24 rlw Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance for a sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m. towards her own maintenance and Rs.5,000/- p.m. towards the maintenance of the minor child. ln the application filed by the respondent it has been stated that the appellant is a man of means and is running two workshops under the names and style of M/s Y.Y. Engineering
Works and M/s Shri Krishna Enterprises located in Chaudhary
Compound, Gokulpuri, Delhi. The respondent has also stated that from the said two workshops the appellant has been earning not less than Rs,50,000/- p.m, lt has also been stated that the appellant resides in a self owned three storeyed house bearing
No. D-98, Gali No. 4, Ganga Vihar, Delhi. The respondent has further stated that the appellant is maintaining a Santro Car bearing no. DL 2CW 5245 and also owns a mobile phone bearing no, 9810246848 and a landline phone bearing no. 22564903.
These averments made by the respondent in the application with regard to the financial status of the appellant have been denied
T
Ib t by the appellant in para 7 of his reply to the said application. To the question posed by this court the appellant has admitted that he is having a mobile phone bearing no. 9810246848. Surprisingly, the appellant in para 7 of his reply has even denied having a mobile phone bearing the said number, but today in the court he has admitted that he owns the mobile phone bearing no. g8L0246848. ln para 8 of his reply the appellant has claimed that he is doing work on daily wages but he has not disclosed as what kind of work he is doing and what wages he is earning from the said work. On the perusal of the said reply filed by the appellant and the sta.tement made by him today in the court, especially the reply given by him with regard to owning a mobile bearing NO. 9810246848, it is quite evident that the appellant is not only dishonest but has the audacity to lie blatantly before this court in para 7 of the said reply filed by him in response to the application of the respondent under Section 24 rlw Section 26 of the Hindu
Marriage Act. lt is thus quite apparent that that the appellant has not been paying the maintenance amount to the respondent willfully and intentionally thus forcing the respondent and the minor child to lead the life as that of destitutes. The appellant is not even concerned about his minor child who is studying in 1't
T
T
\" standard and it is the respondent alone who is bearing all his educational expenses with the support of her father. Vide order dated 9.5.2011, pending consideration of the maintenance application moved by the respondent, this court directed the appellant to continue paying an amount of Rs.2,500/- p.m. to the respondent which amount was fixed by the learned trial court during the pendency of the divorce proceedings. The appeilant was also directed to pay the entire arrears of the maintenance amount, but the appellant defaulted in making the said payments.
Looking into the dishonest conduct of the appellant, he does not deserve any hearing in the present appeal filed by him challenging the
JUDGMENT
and decree dated r.2.2oLo, whereby the divorce petition filed by him was dismissed. lt is no more res integra that with the non-payment of the maintenance amount no hearing in the appeal can be afforded to such a litigant. Reriance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Smt.santosh sehgal vs. shri Murari Lat sehgal
AlR2007Delhi21-0 where the Court in unequivocal terms held that in case the husband fails to pay maintenance and litigation expenses to his wife granted by the court during the pendency of the appeal,
AlR2007Delhi21-0 where the Court in unequivocal terms held that in case the husband fails to pay maintenance and litigation expenses to his wife granted by the court during the pendency of the appeal,
then the appeal filed by the wife against the decree of divorce granted by the trial court in favor of the husband has to be allowed.
Hence, in the right of the above, the present appear filed by the appellant is thus dismissed with cost of Rs,10,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondent within , o"rioo of four weeks. so far the false stand taken by the appellant in his reply to the application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is concerned, the contempt proceedings are directed against the appellant under Article 2L5 of the constitution of India. The appellant is put to show cause notice as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him. Let the reply be filed by the appellant within a period of four weeks. The registry is, directed to make a separate contempt file so as to proceeo against the appellant in the contempt case.
List the contempt matter on 16,11.2011.
I
Y
October 10, 2011 mg
A lA\
*tMrBHrR,J
\\,oh qs -rLc f ss'..^--{ cir-r{ G rytlAk a(; ued\
Sp pq)zc'fuAu - l
-\ ,
Hence, in the right of the above, the present appear filed by the appellant is thus dismissed with cost of Rs,10,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondent within , o"rioo of four weeks. so far the false stand taken by the appellant in his reply to the application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is concerned, the contempt proceedings are directed against the appellant under Article 2L5 of the constitution of India. The appellant is put to show cause notice as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him. Let the reply be filed by the appellant within a period of four weeks. The registry is, directed to make a separate contempt file so as to proceeo against the appellant in the contempt case.
List the contempt matter on 16,11.2011.
I
Y
October 10, 2011 mg
A lA\
*tMrBHrR,J
\\,oh qs -rLc f ss'..^--{ cir-r{ G rytlAk a(; ued\
Sp pq)zc'fuAu - l
-\ ,