Partly allowed

Manoj Kumar v. Kiran Chauhan

Delhi HC29 Nov 2017CM(M)/1349/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge against a grant of last opportunity to file a reply under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court held that the petitioner failed to appear at earlier hearings without justification. The petitioner was directed to pay litigation expenses and submit a reply by 30th November 2017.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed subject to exceptions; petitioner directed to file reply by 30th November 2017 and pay litigation expenses.

Manoj Kumar Vs Kiran Chauhan — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~36

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M) 1349/2017

¶4

M ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Vikas Bhatia, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

K ..... Respondent Through: None.

¶8

CORAM: HHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

¶9

O R D E R % 29.11.2017

¶10

CM No.43217/2017

¶11

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶12

CM(M)1349/2017 & CM No.43218/2017

¶13

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 27^th September, 2017 whereby the learned Trial Court granted last opportunity to the petitioner to file the reply to the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- and also directed to the petitioner to pay the litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not receive the copy of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act from the respondent and, therefore, he could not file the reply.

¶15

The impugned order dated 27^th September, 2017 has been perused. The order does not reflect any submission having been made by the

¶16

petitioner with respect to the non-receipt of the copy and, therefore, this submission cannot be considered at this stage.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was issued to the petitioner on 21^st April, 2017 for 05^th July, 2017 but the same was not served on the petitioner herein. The order dated 21^st April, 2017 and 05^th July, 2017 have been perused. The hearing of 21^st April, 2017 was fixed on 18^th March, 2017 in the presence of petitioner as well as his counsel but the petitioner failed to appear on 21^st April, 2017 as well as 05^th July, 2017. There is no justification for non-appearance of the petitioner on 21^st April, 2017 as well as 05^th July, 2017.

¶18

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will seek the copy of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act from the respondent’s counsel or alternatively inspect the record of the Family Court and will file the reply to the application as well as response to the respondent’s affidavit of assets, income and expenditure on 30^th November, 2017 when the matter is listed before the Family Court. Learned counsel further submits that he would not seek any adjournment for hearing on the respondent’s application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 30^th November, 2017 before the Family Court. The statement of learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.

¶19

In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Family Court shall accept the petitioner’s reply to the maintenance application as well as response to the respondent’s affidavit of assets, income and expenditure and shall proceed to hear the matter.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is

¶21

working/earning and she has filed the Divorce Petition against the petitioner and, therefore, there is no justification for the Family Court to direct the petitioner to pay the litigation expenses to the respondent.

¶22

Subject to outcome of the petitioner’s contention by the Family Court, the petitioner is directed to pay the cost as well as litigation expenses. Needless to say that if the Family Court comes to the conclusion that petitioner is not liable to pay litigation expenses to the respondent, the Family Court shall pass an appropriate order.

¶23

This petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶24

Copy of this order be given dasti to counsels for the parties under signature of Court Master.

¶25

J.R. MIDHA, J.

¶26

NOVEMBER 29, 2017 ak

Manoj Kumar v. Kiran Chauhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar v. Kiran Chauhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shama Sood and Anr. Vs M/S Madan Lal Shyam Sunder

Bajrang Lal Garg & Anr. Vs Bijender Kumar Gahlot & Anr.

Saroj Kumari Vs Kamla Mitra & Ors.

Rakhi and Anr. Vs Babu Lal and Anr.

Meenakshi Vs Madhu Nagia & Ors.

Amulya Kumar Roy (Since Deceased) Thr His Lrs Vs Geeta Roy

Naresh Chander Vs Manju (Now Deceased) Represented by Legal Heir Sonia

Surender Kumar Gupta Vs Jagdish Rawat & Anr.

Master T M Kavian (Minor Thr His Natural Father ) and Anr. Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation and Ors.

Gulnar Vs Vassiullan Khan

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jile Singh @ Zile Singh & Ors. (United India Insurance Co. Ltd)

Ankit Sharma Vs Aarti Sharma

New Delhi Municipal Council Vs Sarvesh Chand Gupta & Anr.

Dr. Nathu Lal Vs Union of India & Ors.