DEEPAKJAIN v. CHARU JAIN

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. AR Lakshmanan
AL Tamas Kabir
Judgment Date: 2007-03-14
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed; the interim order directing Rs.8,000 per month (issued by this Court on 17.02.2006) is vacated; the appellant is to pay the entire balance amount due to the respondent as per the ADJ’s order. The Contempt Petition is dismissed; the trial court is directed to dispose of HM Act Case No.149 of 2003 within three months from today. No costs.
Final Disposition: Civil Appeal and Contempt Petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Deepak Jain

Respondents

Charu Jain

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Prabhakaran and S. Rajappa

Counsels for Respondents

• M.N. Krishnamani and Rajinder Mathur

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 arises from an order of the Delhi High Court affirming an Addl. District Judge’s grant of interim maintenance under Hindu Marriage Act, Section 24. The ADJ fixed Rs.12,000 per month as interim maintenance and Rs.11,000 for litigation expenses from the date of filing. The appellant, a husband, challenged this order in Civil Appeal No. 1404 of 2007 (joined with a Contempt Petition). The High Court had relied on pleadings and annexures and concluded that the trial court rightly determined the interim maintenance at Rs.12,000 per month. This Court, in an interim measure dated 17 February 2006, had directed the appellant to pay Rs.8,000 per month pending the appeal; that interim order is now vacated. The Supreme Court examined the record, heard both sides, and held that the challenged order suffers from no infirmity. It dismissed the appeal, directed the appellant to pay the entire balance due to the respondent, and ordered the trial court to dispose of HM Act Case No.149 of 2003 within three months. The Contempt Petition was dismissed; no costs were awarded. In sum, the final disposition upheld the ADJ’s order, with modification of the interim Rs.8,000 arrangement, and a prompt factual disposition of the underlying case.

Provisions of Law Cited

Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, Section 24

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the High Court erred in upholding the Addl. District Judge’s order granting interim maintenance of Rs.12,000 per month and Rs.11,000 for litigation expenses, and seeks modification of the quantum or a reconsideration consistent with the interim order previously directed by this Court (Rs.8,000 per month).

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent contends that the ADJ’s order fixing Rs.12,000 per month and Rs.11,000 as expenses was just and should be sustained; the High Court properly affirmed it, and the interim arrangements were meant to secure interim support during the proceedings.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

_)_ ## DEEPAKJAIN _v._ ## CHARU JAIN ## MARCH 14, 2007 [DR AR LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] ## _Hindu Marriage Act, 1956:_ _s.24_ - _Interim maintenance-Held, order of trial court granting Rs.12,0001- per month as interim maintenance and Rs.11,0001- as litigation expenses as affirmed by High Court suffers from no infirmity._ > The instant appeal was filed against the order of the High Court affirming the order of the Additional District Judge in an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, granting interim maintenance D at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month together with litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-. ## Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: The order under challenge suffers from no infirmity. The E interim order passed by this Court on 17.2.2006 directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.8000/- per month to the respondent is vacated. The appellant would pay the entire balance amount to the respondent. (1040-F) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1404 of2007. From the Judgment and Order dated 10.1.2006 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CM (M) No. 1720/2004. F ## WITH Contempt Petition No. (C) No. 221 of2006. G Prabhakaran and S. Rajappa for the Appellant. M.N. Krishnamani and Rajinder Mathur for the Respondent. 1039 H SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 3 S.C.R. { 1040 A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. I. Leave granted. 2. Heard Mr.Prabhakaran assisted by Mr.S.Rajappa, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.M.N.Krishnamani, learned senior counsel for the B[respondent. ] 3. The above appeal is directed against the order dt. I 0.01.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in CM(M) No, 1720 of 2004. The said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed before the Delhi High Court against the order of Addi.District Judge, Delhi in H.M.A.Case No. 149 of 2003 whereby the said c court had disposed of the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and fixed an interim maintenance at the rate of 12,000/- per month from the date offiling of the application together with litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-. Aggrieved against the said order, CM(M) No.1720/2004 has been filed before the Delhi High Court. The High Court on considering all D[the ][averments ][made ][in ][the ][pleadings ][and ][also ][taking ][into ][consideration ][all ][the ] other annexures etc. came to the conclusion that the trial court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that Rs.12,000/- should be paid by way of interim maintenance. _)._ ~ 4. We have also carefully perused the impugned order and annexures E and heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides. In our opinion, the order under challenge suffers from no infirmity. We, therefore, have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-husband. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 5. During the pendency of this appeal, this Court as an 'interim measure F on 17.02.2006, directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of the filing of the application and continue to pay till the disposal of this appeal. In view of the fact that the appeal is being dismissed, the said interim order is vacated and the appellant will now be liable to pay the entire amount pursuant to the order of ADJ, G Delhi. 6. It is stated that the said interim order passed by this Court has also not been complied with. We direct the appellant to pay the entire balance amount to the respondent, if any, within two weeks from today. "' .. H 7. In view of the Order now passed, the Contempt Petition is also 1041 DEEP AK JAIN v. CHARU JAIN [LAKSHMANAN, J.) dismissed. A 8. We direct the trial court to dispose of H.M.A.Case No.149 of 2003 within three months from today. No costs. RP. B Civil Appeal & Cont. Petition dismissed.