PRAKASH DUTT vs BHAWANA CHOPRA
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decision delivered on: 26.02.2024
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 60/2024
PRAKASH DUTT ….. Appellant
Through: Mr Sandeep Chandna and Mr Chanpreet Singh, Advs.
versus
BHAWANA CHOPRA ….. Respondent
Through: Mr Arun Baali and Mr Tushar Mehta, Advs.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
1. On the previous date, i.e., 21.02.2024, we heard the matter at some length. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we had broadly recorded the contours of the case. For convenience, the relevant part of the order dated 21.02.2024 is extracted hereafter:
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Central District, Tiz Hazari Courts, Delhi.
3. Via the impugned order, the Family Court has closed the evidence of the appellant/husband.
4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the appellant/husband had paid costs and also placed on record his affidavit of evidence. It appears that an application was also filed by the appellant/husband seeking exemption from personal appearance.
5. It is the grievance of the appellant/husband that since exemption was sought and costs were paid, his evidence ought not to have been closed given the fact that the affidavit of evidence was placed on record.
6. Mr Arun Bali, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent/wife, says that the appellant/husband has delayed prosecution of the divorce petition instituted by him, which is an aspect recorded by the Family Court in the impugned order as well.
7. Furthermore, Mr Bali says that the couple has a minor girl-child from the wedlock and despite interim maintenance having been fixed based on an application moved by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [in short, HMA], the appellant/husband has defaulted in making payments regularly, as directed by the Court.
7.1 In this context, our attention has been drawn to the order dated 17.01.2023 passed by the Family Court on the respondents/wifes application under Section 24 of the HMA.
7.2 In particular, our attention is drawn to the operative directions contained in paragraph 17 of the said order. For convenience, the said part of the order is set forth hereafter:
17. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner/husband is ordered to pay an amount of Rs.75,000/- (rupees seventy five thousand only) per month to the respondent/wife as maintenance for the minor daughter from the date of filing of the application and till the disposal of the petition. The petitioner/husband may clear arrears of maintenance by way of installments within three months. The petitioner/husband is further ordered to pay Rs.21,000/-(lump sum) to the petitioner/wife towards litigation expenses.
8. Before we proceed further, learned counsel for the parties will place their affidavits on record with regard to the arrears concerning payment of interim maintenance ordered by the Family Court.
9. We may note that even according to Mr Sandeep Chandna, counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/husband, there are arrears towards interim maintenance which the appellant/husband is required to liquidate.
10. List the appeal on 26.02.2024.
11. Meanwhile, learned counsel for the parties will ensure that the affidavits, as directed, are placed on record.
2. As would be evident, in the course of the proceedings held on 21.02.2024 it emerged that the appellant had not liquidated the arrears emanating from the order dated 17.01.2023 passed by the Family Court in an application moved by the respondent/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [in short, 1955 Act].
2.1 It is in this context we had directed the learned counsel for the parties to file affidavits concerning arrears with respect to payment of interim maintenance ordered by the Family Court.
3. Although the affidavit of the respondent/wife is on record, the affidavit said to have been lodged on behalf of the appellant/husband is not on record. However, a hard copy of the affidavit filed by the appellant/husband has been placed before us.
4. We may note, even according to Mr Sandeep Chandna, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/husband, as per the terms of the order dated 17.01.2023 passed by the Family Court, Rs.14,00,000/- is outstanding towards the arrears of interim maintenance.
4.1 Mr Arun Baali, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent/wife, however, disputes the figure of arrears put forth by Mr Chandna.
5. Given this position, Mr Chandna says that the appellant/husband will pay, for the moment, Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent/wife towards arrears emanating from the order dated 17.01.2023, on the date fixed before the Family Court, i.e., 18.03.2024, on account, without getting into the debate as which figure is correct.
5.1 The statement made by Mr Chandna is taken on record. The appellant/husband will be bound by the statement made by his counsel.
6. In view of the statement made by Mr Chandna, Mr Baali says that the impugned order can be set aside with liberty to the appellant/husband to lead evidence in the matter.
6.1 It is ordered accordingly. The appellant/husband will have liberty to lead evidence in the matter. It is, however, made clear that the appellant/husband shall remain present before the Family Court on 18.03.2024.
6.2 In case the appellant/husband fails to present himself before the Family Court on the said date, i.e., 18.03.2024, the Family Court will be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in the matter, including closure of right to lead evidence in the matter.
7. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
8. The Registry is directed to scan and upload the hard copy of the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant/husband.
9. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
AMIT BANSAL, J
FEBRUARY 26, 2024
aj
MAT.APP.(F.C.)No.60/2024 Page 4 of 4