Disposed

Neetu Gulati v. Kamal Kumar Gulati

Delhi HC25 Jan 2024MAT.APP.(F.C.)/210/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife appealed against a Family Court order awarding Rs.25,000 monthly interim maintenance, seeking enhancement to Rs.75,000. Delay in filing was condoned; enhancement plea was not pressed. Appeal disposed of with directions for the Family Court to determine and secure payment of maintenance arrears.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; impugned Section 24 order sustained; Family Court to determine maintenance arrears within three weeks and ensure payment within two months.

Neetu Gulati Vs Kamal Kumar Gulati — Maintenance and Alimony | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~9

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of decision: 25.01.2024

¶4

- MAT.APP.(F.C.) 210/2019

¶5

NEETU GULATI ..... Appellant

¶6

Through: Mr D Hasija with Mr Surya Shekhar Kumar and Mr Kushal Kumar, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

KAMAL KUMAR GULATI ..... Respondent

¶9

Through: Mr Harsh Gupta, Advocate.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

¶12

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

¶13

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)

¶14

CM No. 34899/2019 [Application filed on behalf of the applicant - appellant/wife seeking condonation of delay of 96 days in filing the appeal]

¶15

This is an application filed on behalf of the appellant/wife, seeking condonation of delay in filing the accompanying appeal.

¶16

The appellant/wife avers that she could not approach the court in time due to financial constraints.

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

MAT.APP.(F.C.)No.210/2019 Page 1 of 4

¶19

Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Da te:2 7.01.2024 20:47:30

¶20

2.1 It is stated by the appellant/wife that she is financially dependent on her family members.

¶21

Although the respondent/husband has opposed the application, we are inclined to condone the delay, given the reasons articulated in the application.

¶22

The application is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶23

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 210/2019

¶24

This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.01.2019, passed by the Family Court, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

¶25

Via the impugned order, the Family Court disposed of the application filed by the appellant/wife, preferred under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [in short, “1955 Act”].

¶26

In sum, the Family Court has directed the respondent/husband to pay to the appellant/wife cumulative interim maintenance @ Rs.25,000/- per month.

¶27

7.1 The breakup of this sum is as follows: Rs.17,500/- per month is to be paid by the respondent/husband as maintenance to the appellant/wife, while the remaining amount, i.e., Rs.7,500/- per month is to be paid towards the education of the minor child.

¶28

7.2 Besides this, the Family Court has also awarded Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses over and above Rs.11,000/-, which had already been paid to the appellant/wife.

¶29

Significantly, the Family Court directed the respondent/husband to liquidate the arrears of maintenance, including the litigation cost, within two (02) months from the date of the impugned order.

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

MAT.APP.(F.C.)No.210/2019 Page 2 of 4

¶32

Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Da te:2 7.01.2024 20:47:30

¶33

Although this appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant/wife to seek enhancement of the maintenance awarded by the Family Court to Rs.75,000/- per month, Mr D Hasija, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/wife, says that he would not press the appeal in case a direction is issued to the respondent/husband to pay the arrears due towards maintenance within a defined timeframe.

¶34

It is the submission of Mr Hasija that the arrears concerning maintenance amounting to Rs.13 lakhs (approximately) are payable by the respondent/husband.

¶35

On the other hand, Mr Harsh Gupta, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent/husband, draws our attention to an order dated 16.01.2023 passed in Execution Petition 8 of 2022, in support of his submission that maintenance of only Rs.5,75,000/- are payable and not Rs.13 lakhs as claimed by the appellant/wife.

¶36

In the instant appeal, the divergent stand taken by the counsel for the parties concerning maintenance arrears need not detain us as its scope was whether or not the plea raised by the appellant/wife for enhancement of maintenance was tenable. The plea, as noted above, has been given up by the appellant/wife.

¶37

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with the following directions:

¶38

(i) Since, the appeal is not pressed, the impugned order is sustained.

¶39

(ii) The Family Court will determine the exact amount payable by the respondent/husband towards maintenance arrears.

¶40

(iii) Once the determination has been made; an exercise which will be undertaken in three (03) weeks from the receipt of a copy of the judgment, the Family Court will ensure that the arrears are paid within two (02) months

¶41

Signature Not Verified

¶42

MAT.APP.(F.C.)No.210/2019 Page 3 of 4

¶43

Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Da te:2 7.01.2024 20:47:30

¶44

of such exercise being completed.

¶45

Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the judgment.

¶46

The Registry will dispatch a copy of the judgment to the concerned Family Court.

¶47

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶48

AMIT BANSAL, J

¶49

JANUARY 25, 2024 / tr

¶50

Signature Not Verified

¶51

MAT.APP.(F.C.)No.210/2019 Page 4 of 4

¶52

Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Da te:2 7.01.2024 20:47:30

Neetu Gulati v. Kamal Kumar Gulati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neetu Gulati v. Kamal Kumar Gulati

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

Anurag Singh Vs Priyanaka Tanwar

Gaurav Sahu Vs Simran Singh

Brigadier Vikram Singh Vs Dr Aradhana Singh

Vermeet Singh Taneja Vs Jasmeet Kaur

Sumit Tanwar Vs Anjali Tanwar

Vineet Gupta Vs Mukta Aggarwal

Mukta Agarwal Vs Vineet Gupta

Jyoti Puri Vs Sumeet Puri and Ors.

Amarjeet Singh Bammi & Anr. Vs Master Fatehvir Singh (Minor) & Ors.

Anurag Singh Vs Priyanaka Tanwar

Gaurav Sahu Vs Simran Singh

M/S Village People Restaurants LLP Vs Shailender Singh HUF

Bs Mathur Vs High Court of Delhi and Anr.

Deepak Chhabra Vs Anil Goel & Ors.