Dolly Goel v. Vineet Goel

2017. This position is not disputed. The respondent Dolly Goel submits that there are 7joint FDRs (totalling a sum of approximately 13 lakhs) in the joint names of Dolly Goel and Vineet Goel: Dolly Goel was the first depositor; her submission is that she be permitted to withdraw this money and reimburse it in her account as she has expended money on account of the education of their daughter who is presently studying in the USA. The petitioner is present. His submission is that this money actually belongs to him but asa kind gesture he has no objection it the money be released in favour of his estranged wife subject to the respondent giving an account as to where the money is spent once the money is transferred to her account. A no objection will accordingly be given by Vineet Goel in the Bank of Inida. Gaziabad Branch in order the money can be withdrawn by Dolly Goel; he will co-operate in this matter. Out of this sum the respondent undertakes to send a sum of $ 10,000/- (approximately 7 lakhs) in the account of their daughter who is studying abroad. The balance amount shall be formatted and a statement of account to the said effect shall be placed before the trial court with a copy to the petitioner. There are two petitions before this Court. CM (M) NO. 1389/2011 lay a challenge to the interim directions given by the learned Family Court Judge wherein interim maintenance @ 1,22,000/- was fixed in favour of Dolly Goel. She has sought enhancement of this amount. CM(M) No. 1498/2010 also lay a challenge to the same order. Contention of Vineet Goel is that this 4' amount is on the higher side and itshould be decreased. This Court notes that on an earlier date i.e. on 29.09.2016 this Court had directed the learned Family Court Judge to expedite the trial proceedings and endeavour to dispose of the divorce petition within an outer limit of 6 months. Counsel for the parties inform this Court that the evidence of PWl (Dolly Geol) now stands completed. Parties will stick to the time schedule which has been laid down by this Court and accordingly the petitioner (Dolly Goel) will produce her entire evidence on the next date. The Trial Court will adhere to this time schedule detailed in order dated 29.09.2016 and endeavour to dispose of the divorce petition within the afore noted period of six months. In this view of the matter learned counsel for the parties submit that they would not be pressing their respective petitions. Trial Court on appropriate applications being filed (if not already filed) will deal with the contentions raised before this Court at the time of final disposal i.e. whether maintenance ^ 1,22,000/- is sufficient or insufficient. The learned counsel for Dolly Goel submits that her application striking off the defence of Vineet Goel is pending before the Trial Court as Vineet Goel had not cleared his arrears of maintenance within the stipulated time period. The Trial Judge will deal with the application independent of any observation made in this order. This Court also notes that a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs has been deposited by Vineet Goel in terms of an earlier direction of this Court i.e. the order dated 30.11.2010. This sum of Rs. 6 lakhs lying with the s'^ Court Judge (along with the accrued interest) who shall deal with the same in accordance with law at the time of tlnal disposal of the divorce petition. Both the petitions are disposed of in theabove terms. Order dasti under signatures of Court Master.

INDERMEET KAIJR, J FEBRUARY 22, 2017 gb