Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 1346
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, DEEPA SHARMA, JJ.
M.S. - Appellant
Versus
S.S. - Respondent
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 121 of 2018, CM APPL. 21459, 21460, 21461 of 2017
Decided On : 22-05-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Ashok Tobria, Advocate along with Mr. Pradeep Kumar Pathak, Advocate.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the lifestyle and income of the parties in maintenance orders under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Hindu Marriage Act - Sections 24, 26 - Family Courts Act, 1984
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenges an order allowing maintenance for the respondent wife and minor children under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant failed to comply with the maintenance order, leading to a review application which was dismissed by the Family Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to make the required maintenance payments despite several opportunities. It also observed that the lifestyle of the parties and the income of the respondent wife were considered in the earlier order, and there were no grounds to reconsider or recall that order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's refusal to comply with the maintenance order, the lifestyle and income of the parties, and the grounds for reconsideration of the earlier order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's failure to deny his income and the expenses related to the children's education, along with the voluntary disclosure of the respondent wife's employment and income, supported the earlier maintenance order.
Final Decision: The appeal was deemed devoid of merit, and the pending applications were accordingly dismissed.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
1. The present matrimonial appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, filed belatedly, challenges an order dated 25.05.2017, whereby two applications instituted on behalf of the respondent/wife under Sections 24 and 26 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking maintenance for herself and for the two minor children, was allowed by the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in HMA No. 62043/2016 titled as “M.S. vs. S.S”; as well as an order dated 05.04.2018 dismissing the application seeking review of the order dated 25.05.2017.
2. At the outset, it must be pointed out that aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.05.2017, whereby the above-stated applications were allowed, the appellant/husband instituted an application seeking review of the said order dated 25.05.2017 which came to be dismissed vide the impugned order dated 05.04.2018.
3. In the latter order, the learned Family Court observed as under:-
“The petitioner requests for an adjournment on the ground that his counsel is not available today due to certain personal reasons. Adjournment is declined.
A review application u/s 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC dated 30.06.2017 is filed on behalf of the applicant/ petitioner husband which is pending for disposal. A reply to the review application has already been filed.
Heard and perused the record. Shorn of all details, it may be stated that this Court vide order dated 25.05.2017 disposed of application u/s 24 & 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act thereby directing the petitioner husband to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent wife w.e.f. June 2015 i.e. time after she left her services: and the petitioner husband has further been directed to pay ad-interim maintenance @ Rs.7,500/- to each of the minor children from the date of filing of the petition till they attain the age of majority. The petitioner husband was also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.11,000/-.
Suffice to state that the said order has not been complied with by the petitioner husband. He has been given several substantive opportunities to make payment towards arrears of maintenance and also to pay maintenance on current basis but in vain.
Ex- facie, in the review application, I find that there are brought out no grounds so as to reconsiders or recall the earlier order dated 25.05.2017. No iota of case is made out that there is any error apparent on the face of the record.
This Court took into account social and economic factors including the life style of the parties while passing the order on maintenance. Moreover, since the order u/s 24 & 26 of the HMA is an appealable order, no review can be entertained. It appears that the review petition is an appeal in disguise, which cannot be entertained by this Court. It is quite noticeable in matrimonial proceedings that it has become unsavoury trend on the part of the defaulting spouse moving review application, whenever an order of maintenance is passed and thereby derailing the proceedings and frustrating the letter and spirit of the law.
In the said view of the matter, the review application dated 30.06.2017 is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- which be paid to the respondent on the next date of hearing. The petitioner husband is afforded one more opportunity to pay the arrears of maintenance as per the order dated 25.05.2017, failing which the present petition shall be adjourned sine die.
Now to come up for status of payment on 16.05.2018.”
4. A plain reading of the above order clearly reflects that despite directions contained in the earlier order dated 25.05.2017, directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent w.e.f. June 2015 i.e. time after she left her services; and maintenance at the rate of Rs. 7,500/- to each of the minor children from the date of filing of the petition till they attain the age of maturity; and litigation cost in the sum of Rs. 11,000/-; the appellant/husband despite several opp
