Ram Kumar Vs Sangeeta Gupta

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

FIRST APPEAL No. - 735 of 2023

Ram Kumar

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

Sangeeta Gupta .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Jitendra Prasad, Kuldeep Kumar Dube Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anjani Kumar, Narendra Mishra

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Court No. - 29

¶9

HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.

¶10

Mr. Kuldeep Kumar Dube, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant, in the appeal fixed for 2.00 p.m and called. The fixation was earlier on 25th February, 2026, when Mr. Gaurav Tiwari, learned advocate instructed by Mr. Anjani Kumar had mentioned for early hearing. Paragraphs 1 and 2 from order made that day are reproduced below :

¶11

"1. Mr. Gaurav Tiwari, learned advocate holding the brief appears on behalf of respondent-wife and submits, there was mention made in the morning for the appeal to be called out of turn. He submits, his client had applied for maintenance pendente lite and there was direction on order dated 4th April, 2022 passed by the Family Court for payment of Rs. 10,000/- per month. In the appeal there was order made referring parties to mediation and further requiring appellant to deposit Rs. 5 lacs. Out of the deposit his client got only Rs. 25,000/- as expenses for attending the mediation. He seeks direction for disbursement of the balance since, he submits, appellant's main petition for restitution has since been dismissed. Mr. Kuldeep Kumar Dubey, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-husband. He submits, he does not have his brief today and there be adjournment.

¶12

2. Mr. Tiwari presses for direction to release the balance deposit. Mr. Dubey opposes. Adjournment granted is peremptory. "

¶13

Mr. Gaurav Tiwari submits, appellant had filed for restitution. During pendency his client had applied for maintenance pendente lite. There was

¶14

FAPL No. 735 of 2023

¶15

2

¶16

direction for payment of monthly maintenance. Appellant thereafter did not prosecute his petition for restitution, by not appearing. The petition came to be dismissed by the Family Court on order dated 28th April, 2023. There was clear direction that interlocutory order made earlier for payment of maintenance pendente lite would subsist till the date of dismissal. As such, there be direction upon appellant to pay the accumulated arrears of maintenance.

¶17

The appeal stands directed against order dated 4th April, 2022, directing maintenance pendente lite at Rs.10,000/- p.m. The appeal was presented on 22nd May, 2023, after dismissal of the restitution petition. Considering appellant's restitution petition, in which impugned interlocutory order stood made, was dismissed for default, he cannot thereafter say he is aggrieved by the interlocutory order earlier passed. His remedy lay in prosecuting the petition for restitution, to persuade the Family Court that respondent should stay with him and not ask for maintenance.

¶18

The parties had been referred to Mediation. It failed. However, there stands deposited by appellant, some money out of which Rs.25,000/- was disbursed to respondent. We direct disbursal of the balance to respondent on producing certified copy of this order. She must file for execution to recover the balance, if any.

¶19

The appeal is disposed of.

¶20

March 18, 2026 VS

¶21

(Arindam Sinha,J.)

¶22

(Satya Veer Singh,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR BARATAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Kumar v. Sangeeta Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kumar v. Sangeeta Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Committee of Management of Hindustan Aeronautics Karamchari Sehkari Awas Samiti Ltd. and Another vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Haji Mohammad Naeem vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Committee of Management of Hindustan Aeronautics Karamchari Sehkari Awas Samiti Ltd. and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Man Chand Gautam vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Reshma Pal Vs Umesh Pal

Union of India Thur. Secy. and Others Vs Smt. Shyama Shukla and Another