Dismissed¶41

Rajeev Rakshit v. Chandna Singh Rakshit

Delhi HC14 Jul 2025MAT.APP.(F.C.)/248/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 248/2025, Delhi High Court (Navin Chawla & Renu Bhatnagar JJ.), decided 14.07.2025. Keywords: Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act interim maintenance; withdrawal of divorce petition; condonation of delay (203 days); H.M.A. No. 314/2021 Family Court Saket; Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 income/assets affidavit; Hulas Rai Baij Nath v. Firm K. B. Bass & Co (1967 SCC OnLine SC 61) distinguished; K. K. Modi v. K. N. Modi (2007 SCC OnLine Del 1371) referred; Section 65B Indian Evidence Act certificate; DV Act maintenance adjustment; maintenance from date of application till withdrawal permitted.

What did the court decide?

The explanation of counsel's health/medical issues and the appellant's absence at Bangalore does not justify the 203-day delay in filing the appeal. ¶17

Rajeev Rakshit Vs Chandna Singh Rakshit — Domestic Violence | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the 203-day delay in filing the appeal ought to be condoned. +3 more

¶15

Court's answer

The explanation of counsel's health/medical issues and the appellant's absence at Bangalore does not justify the 203-day delay in filing the appeal.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Since no formal application to withdraw the divorce petition was ever filed and the appellant stopped appearing from 24.05.2024, the Family Court had no option but to continue with the divorce petition and the Section 24 HMA application.

¶36

Key takeaways

An application under Section 24 HMA cannot be defeated by merely seeking to withdraw the divorce petition.ratio¶37
Maintenance under Section 24 HMA has to be granted from the date of filing of the application and continues till the date the divorce petition is permitted to be withdrawn.ratio¶37
The divorce petition having never been withdrawn, the Family Court rightly proceeded with the matter and, after examining the respondent's affidavit of income and assets, awarded interim maintenance by the Impugned Order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Matrimonial Appeal (Delhi High Court) — Husband's appeal against Family Court order awarding Rs. 60,000/- per month interim maintenance to wife under Section 24 HMA dismissed, both on delay and on merits. (i) Condonation: a 203-day delay attributed to counsel's health issues and the appellant's relocation was not acceptable, the surgery being much after the Impugned Order. (ii) Withdrawal of divorce petition: though the appellant expressed intent on 28.07.2023 to withdraw his divorce petition, he never filed a formal withdrawal application and, from 24.05.2024, stopped appearing; the Family Court therefore had no option but to continue the proceedings. An application under Section 24 HMA cannot be defeated by merely seeking to withdraw the divorce petition; maintenance runs from the date of filing of the application until the petition is permitted to be withdrawn. Interim maintenance was rightly awarded after examining the respondent's affidavit of income and assets (as per Rajnesh v. Neha directions). (iii) DV Act overlap: the Mahila Court order granting Rs. 40,000/- per month per child appears to be for the children; any adjustment is to be worked out in enforcement proceedings, if filed. No order as to costs.

¶1

$~124

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 14.07.2025

¶4

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 248/2025 AND CM APPL. 40901/2025 & CM APPL. 40902/2025

¶5

RAJEEV RAKSHIT .....Appellant Through: Mr. N. Chaudhary and Mr. Rajesh Singh Tomar, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

CHANDNA SINGH RAKSHIT .....Respondent Through: Nemo.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

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

¶10

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶11

This appeal has been filed challenging the Order dated 05.11.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Family Court’) in H.M.A. No. 314/2021 titled Rajeev Rakshit v. Chandna Singh Rakshit, disposing of the application dated 23.03.2022 filed by the respondent/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘HMA’), directing the appellant/husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 60,000/- per month to the respondent for food, medicines, social obligations, transportation, toiletries, clothing, etc.

¶12

At the outset, we would note that the present appeal has been

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

Signed MAT.APP.(F.C.) 248/2025 Page 1 of 7 By:PRIYADARSHANI JAIN Signing Date:18.07.2025 16:47:57

¶15

filed with a delay of 203 days. The only explanation given in the application seeking condonation of the delay is as under:

¶16

“2.That due to health/medical issues since April, 2024, the previous Counsel for appellant had reduced his appearance before the courts. The previous Counsel finally had to undergo surgical procedure at Manipal Hospital, Dwarka, New Delhi on 30/04/2025. As the previous Counsel was facing health/medical issues and the appellant had to remain at Bangalore in connection with new job, therefore, the appellant came to know about the impugned Order dt. 05/11/2024 only in January, 2025. He immediately got applied for certified copy on 21/01/2025 and obtained the same on 08/04/2025. As the previous counsel was advised bed rest post surgery, therefore, the appellant engaged new Counsel, who after going through the complete file filed the appeal.”

¶17

We do not find the above explanation to be acceptable. Merely because the learned counsel for the appellant, due to his own health/medical issues, had reduced his appearance before the Courts and eventually had to undergo a surgical procedure, which was much after the passing of the Impugned Order, that is, on 30.04.2025, the same cannot explain such a huge delay in filing of the present appeal.

¶18

Even otherwise, we find no merit in the present appeal. 5. A perusal of the orders of the learned Family Court shows that the appellant had filed the above divorce petition on 19.02.2021 seeking divorce from the respondent under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the HMA. On 23.03.2022, the respondent filed the abovementioned application under Section 24 of the HMA seeking interim maintenance of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the appellant. On 28.07.2023, the learned

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Signed MAT.APP.(F.C.) 248/2025 Page 2 of 7 By:PRIYADARSHANI JAIN Signing Date:18.07.2025 16:47:57

¶21

counsel for the appellant submitted before the learned Family Court that she has instructions to withdraw the divorce petition filed by the appellant. This was objected to by the respondent/wife stating that she had incurred expenses for engaging a lawyer to defend her case and she sought time to produce her bank statement to show the money transferred to the counsel, so that appropriate costs could be awarded. 6. Thereafter, on 31.08.2023, when the petition was again listed before the learned Family Court, the respondent filed the statement of litigation expenses along with an affidavit and her bank account statements. On the said date, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for time to go through these documents before making submissions. Further time to file a reply was again sought by the appellant, as recorded in the Order dated 13.10.2023 of the learned Family Court. In fact, this request for an adjournment was opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent, however, the same was still granted.

¶22

Subsequently, on 02.12.2023, the appellant filed a reply to the statement of litigation expenses filed by the respondent. However, an adjournment was again sought by the learned counsel for the appellant for moving an appropriate application to withdraw the divorce petition. The parties were then referred to the Counsellor for exploring the possibility of arriving at an amicable settlement.

¶23

On 09.01.2024, the appellant again sought an adjournment for moving the appropriate application to withdraw the divorce petition. The learned Family Court, as far as the application under Section 24 of the HMA is concerned, directed the parties to file their affidavits of

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Signed MAT.APP.(F.C.) 248/2025 Page 3 of 7 By:PRIYADARSHANI JAIN Signing Date:18.07.2025 16:47:57

¶26

income and assets, in terms of the Judgement of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 . The aforesaid opportunity was again granted to both the parties on 23.03.2024.

¶27

On 24.05.2024, the learned Family Court directed the respondent to file a certificate in terms of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in support of the electronic records filed by her. 10. It is relevant to note here that from 24.05.2024 onwards, the appellant and his counsel stopped appearing before the learned Family Court, nor was any application seeking withdrawal of the divorce petition moved by the appellant before the learned Family Court. 11. The learned Family Court, therefore, proceeded with the divorce petition as also the application filed by the respondent under Section 24 of the HMA, resulting in the Impugned Order being passed by the learned Family Court. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in not allowing the appellant to withdraw the divorce petition, especially when the appellant was not seeking any liberty to file a divorce petition afresh. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Hulas Rai Baij Nath v. Firm K. B. Bass & Co, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 61 and of this Court in K. K. Modi v. K. N. Modi , 2007 SCC OnLine Del 1371. 13. He submits that once the appellant had already expressed his intent to withdraw the divorce petition, the learned Family Court could not have granted interim maintenance in favour of the respondent.

¶28

He further submits that the respondent had also filed separate

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Signed MAT.APP.(F.C.) 248/2025 Page 4 of 7 By:PRIYADARSHANI JAIN Signing Date:18.07.2025 16:47:57

¶31

proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘DV Act’), wherein, vide Order dated 04.03.2020, interim maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- per month to each child had been granted. He submits that even the said amount has not been directed to be adjusted in the Impugned Order.

¶32

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 16. As noted hereinabove, we have not found any justified explanation for the delay in filing of the present appeal; however and notwithstanding that, we have also proceeded to consider the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant on merits. 17. In Hulas Rai Baij Nath (supra), the Supreme Court, while holding that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which requires the Court to refuse permission to withdraw the suit unconditionally, or to compel the plaintiff to proceed with the same, also held that in such circumstances, the Court may award the costs of the suit to the defendant.

¶33

In the present case, as recorded in the Order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, though the appellant had expressed the intention to withdraw the divorce petition, however, the respondent had insisted on the litigation costs and had also sought time to produce proof in that regard. Further, proceedings were duly conducted for the said proof to be considered. 19. Even though the appellant sought time to file a formal application seeking withdrawal of the divorce petition, however, neither such an application was filed and from 24.05.2024 onwards,

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Signed MAT.APP.(F.C.) 248/2025 Page 5 of 7 By:PRIYADARSHANI JAIN Signing Date:18.07.2025 16:47:57

¶36

the appellant, without any further explanation, stopped appearing before the learned Family Court. The learned Family Court, therefore, had no option but to continue with the proceedings of the divorce petition, including the application filed by the respondent under Section 24 of the HMA.

¶37

As far as the application under Section 24 of the HMA is concerned, the same cannot be defeated by merely seeking to withdraw the divorce petition. The maintenance has to be granted from the date of filing of the application and, therefore, has to continue till the date when the divorce petition is permitted to be withdrawn by the learned Family Court.

¶38

In the instant case, as noted hereinabove, the divorce petition was never withdrawn by the appellant and the same duly continued. The learned Family Court, therefore, in our opinion, rightly proceeded with the matter, and after examining the affidavit of income and assets filed by the respondent, awarded the interim maintenance by way of the Impugned Order.

¶39

Insofar as the adjustment of the maintenance granted under the DV Act is concerned, the order passed by the learned Mahila Court appears to be for the maintenance of the children. Even otherwise, this will be a matter to be determined in an appropriate proceedings seeking enforcement of the impugned order, if filed.

¶40