Dismissed

Ms. Sarita Upadhyay @ Sarita Alok Upadhyay & Anr. v. Alok Upadhyay @ Alok Ashok Upadhyay

Delhi HC15 Jan 2025CRL.REV.P.(MAT.)/14/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a petition challenging the Trial Court's decision not to award interim maintenance due to alleged unemployment. The petition is treated as withdrawn, with liberty granted to seek maintenance based on fresh employment evidence.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to Petitioner to move an appropriate application before the Trial Court on the basis of new documents evidencing Respondent's income.

Ms. Sarita Upadhyay @ Sarita Alok Upadhyay & Anr. Vs… — Maintenance and Alimony | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~66

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 14/2025

¶4

MS. SARITA UPADHYAY @ SARITA ALOK UPADHYAY & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Mukta Sharma, Advocate (Through VC)

¶5

versus

¶6

ALOK UPADHYAY @ ALOK ASHOK UPADHYAY

.....Respondent

Through: None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R

¶11

% 15.01.2025

¶12

CRL.M.A. 955/2025 (for exemption)

¶13

Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

The application stands disposed of.

¶15

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 14/2025

¶16

This is a petition filed seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 26.10.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-02, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (‘Trial Court’) in Mt No. 602/22, wherein the Trial Court has returned a finding that as per the income affidavit filed by the Respondent herein, the Respondent does not appear to have any income and therefore did not determine any interim maintenance for the Petitioner.

¶17

In the said affidavit, the Trial Court has relied upon the statement of

¶18

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 14/2025

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 15:11:05

¶21

the Respondent that he is presently unemployed.

¶22

Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner has now available with her documentary evidence, which shows that Respondent continues to be employed with ‘Greatship (India) Limited’ and has been receiving regular payments from them as per the TDS deductions reflected in his statement.

¶23

She states that she seeks liberty to place before the Trial Court fresh documents evidencing the existing income of the Respondent and move an appropriate application before the Trial Court for grant of interim maintenance on the basis of the fresh documents available with her.

¶24

This petition is dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty to the Petitioner to move an appropriate application on the basis of the new documents stated to be now available with the Petitioner.

¶25

With the aforesaid directions, the petition alongwith applications is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶26

Needless to state that the application when filed, will be decided by the Trial Court in accordance with law.

¶27

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶28

JANUARY 15, 2025/ rhc/MG

¶29

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 14/2025

¶30

Page 2 of 2

¶31

Ms. Sarita Upadhyay @ Sarita Alok Upadhyay & Anr. v. Alok Upadhyay @ Alok Ashok Upadhyay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Sarita Upadhyay @ Sarita Alok Upadhyay & Anr. v. Alok Upadhyay @ Alok Ashok Upadhyay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prestige Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Saroj Kumar (through Pairokar) Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

Prernaa Malhotra and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Manoj Kumar & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Yogesh Bansal Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Pritam Vs State NCT of Delhi