Dismissed¶18

Irshad Khan v. Rashida Alias Munni

Delhi HC16 Apr 2025MAT.APP.(F.C.)/141/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against interlocutory Family Court order; interim maintenance arrears Rs. 18,000/-; compliance with subsisting maintenance order unless vacated; maintainability of appeal against interlocutory order; guardianship proceeding G.P. No. 91/2022 (Shahdara, Karkardooma); pending applications under Section 340 CrPC 1973 and Order XII Rule 6 CPC 1908; interim custody of minor child; MAT.APP.(F.C.) 141/2025; decided 16.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant on merits; the appeal stands dismissed as being devoid of any merit. CM APPL. 21931/2025 (Exemption) was allowed subject to all just exceptions. ¶18

Irshad Khan Vs Rashida Alias Munni — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant on merits; the appeal stands dismissed as being devoid of any merit. CM APPL. 21931/2025 (Exemption) was allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the direction of the learned Family Court to pay the arrears of maintenance of Rs. 18,000/- is perverse, and whether an appeal against such an interlocutory order is maintainable. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

Though the appeal itself may not be maintainable, the impugned order being interlocutory in nature, even otherwise no infirmity is found in the Family Court's direction: an order of grant of maintenance currently in operation has to be complied with by the appellant unless vacated by the Court itself or by a higher Court in appeal; therefore no infirmity can be found in the said direction.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

No further directions were warranted to the learned Family Court regarding the appellant's prayers for disposal of his applications (including under Section 340 CrPC and Order XII Rule 6 CPC) and for custody of the minor child, because these applications have already been partly heard by the learned Family Court itself.

¶18

Key takeaways

CM APPL. 21931/2025 (Exemption) was allowed, subject to all just exceptions.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Navin Chawla & Renu Bhatnagar, JJ., decision dated 16.04.2025), MAT.APP.(F.C.) 141/2025 — Irshad Khan v. Rashida alias Munni: Appeal against the Family Court, District Shahdara (Karkardooma) order dated 05.03.2025 in G.P. No. 91/2022 (Irshad Khan v. Rashida @ Munni & Ors.), whereby the appellant's applications for interim custody of the minor child and for stay of payment of interim maintenance were partly heard and the appellant was directed to clear maintenance arrears of Rs. 18,000/- the same day. Held: (i) the impugned order being interlocutory, the appeal may not be maintainable, and even otherwise there is no infirmity in the direction, since a subsisting order of maintenance must be complied with unless vacated by the Court itself or by a higher Court in appeal; (ii) no directions were to be given to the Family Court to expedite or conclude the appellant's partly-heard applications under Section 340 CrPC, 1973 and Order XII Rule 6 CPC, 1908, and for custody of the minor child. Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit; exemption application allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶1

$~79

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision:16.04.2025

¶4

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 141/2025 IRSHAD KHAN .....Appellant

¶5

Through: Mr. Narendra Mishra, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

RASHIDA ALIAS MUNNI .....Respondent Through: Nemo CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

¶9

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶10

CM APPL. 21931/2025 (Exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 141/2025

¶12

This appeal has been filed by the appellant, challenging the Order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, District Shahdara, Karkardooma Court, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Family Court’) in G.P. No. 91/2022 titled Irshad Khan v. Rashida @ Munni & Ors., whereby the application filed by the appellant herein seeking interim custody of the minor child as well as seeking a stay of the payment of the interim maintenance to the respondent, was partly heard. The appellant was directed to clear the arrears of maintenance of Rs. 18,000/- on the date of the Order itself, that is, 05.03.2025.

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

Signed By:VIJAYA LAKSHMI DOBHAL Signing Da te:2 3.04.2025 16:14:54

¶15

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 141/2025 Page 1 of 2

¶16

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is aggrieved by the direction passed by the learned Family Court to pay the arrears of maintenance as being perverse.

¶17

Though finding that the appeal itself may not be maintainable, as the order is interlocutory in nature, we even otherwise, find no infirmity in the same. The learned Family Court has ensured that the Order of grant of maintenance, which is currently in operation, has to be complied with by the appellant unless vacated by the Court itself or by a higher Court in appeal. Therefore, no infirmity can be found in the said direction of the learned Family Court.

¶18

As far as the prayers of the appellant seeking direction to be issued to the learned Family Court to dispose of the application filed by the appellant under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as well as the application for the grant of custody of the minor child, are concerned, these applications have been partly heard by the learned Family Court and therefore, we do not find any reason to give further directions to the learned Family Court on the same. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed as being devoid of any merit.

¶19

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶20

RENU BHATNAGAR, J

¶21

APRIL 16, 2025 p /mn/DG

¶22

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶23

Signature Not Verified Signed By:VIJAYALAKSHMI DOBHAL MAT.APP.(F.C.) 141/2025 Page 2 of 2 Signing Da te:2 3.04.2025 16:14:54

Irshad Khan v. Rashida Alias Munni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irshad Khan v. Rashida Alias Munni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Richa Sureka Vs Akhil Kumar Sureka

Megha Vikas Sapra and Ors. Vs Tarun Sapra

Gaurav Batra Vs Disha Gupta

Ashish Dubey Vs Sara Carriere Dubey

Sh Nitin Chopra Vs Smt Geeta Chopra

Rahul Dass Vs Anamika Rastogi

Priya Upadhyay & Anr. Vs Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar Vs Priya Upadhyay Alias Khushi

Richa Sureka Vs Akhil Kumar Sureka

Geeta Chatterjee & Anr. Vs Jagmohan Prasad & Ors.

Saurabh Raghav Vs Union of India & Ors.

Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs Savita

Union of India & Ors. Vs Ashish Dhaker

Sheikh Iqbal Ahmed & Ors. Vs Ashwani Kumar Gupta & Ors.