IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Amit Bansal, JJ.
Prakash Dutt - Appellant
Versus
Bhawana Chopra - Respondent
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 60 of 2024
Decided On : 26-02-2024
Exemption - Family Court Order - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [HMA] - Section 24
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/husband sought exemption from personal appearance and closure of evidence, which was contested by the respondent/wife citing delay in prosecution of the divorce petition and default in making maintenance payments for their minor daughter.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the appellant/husband to pay arrears of interim maintenance and set aside the impugned order, granting him liberty to lead evidence with a warning of consequences for non-appearance.
Issues: Exemption from personal appearance, closure of evidence, delay in prosecution, default in maintenance payments, arrears of interim maintenance, liberty to lead evidence, consequences of non-appearance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of timely maintenance payments and the consequences of non-appearance in the proceedings.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of with the direction for the appellant/husband to pay arrears of interim maintenance and granted him liberty to lead evidence with a warning of consequences for non-appearance.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral) - On the previous date, i.e., 21.02.2024, we heard the matter at some length. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we had broadly recorded the contours of the case. For convenience, the relevant part of the order dated 21.02.2024 is extracted hereafter:
"2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Central District, Tiz Hazari Courts, Delhi.
3. Via the impugned order, the Family Court has closed the evidence of the appellant/husband.
4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the appellant/husband had paid costs and also placed on record his affidavit of evidence. It appears that an application was also filed by the appellant/husband seeking exemption from personal appearance.
5. It is the grievance of the appellant/husband that since exemption was sought and costs were paid, his evidence ought not to have been closed given the fact that the affidavit of evidence was placed on record.
6. Mr Arun Bali, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent/wife, says that the appellant/husband has delayed prosecution of the divorce petition instituted by him, which is an aspect recorded by the Family Court in the impugned order as well.
7. Furthermore, Mr Bali says that the couple has a minor girl-child from the wedlock and despite interim maintenance having been fixed based on an application moved by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [in short, "HMA"], the appellant/husband has defaulted in making payments regularly, as directed by the Court.
7.1 In this context, our attention has been drawn to the order dated 17.01.2023 passed by the Family Court on the respondent's/wife's application under Section 24 of the HMA.
7.2 In particular, our attention is drawn to the operative directions contained in paragraph 17 of the said order. For convenience, the said part of the order is set forth hereafter:
"17. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner/husband is ordered to pay an amount of Rs.75,000/- (rupees seventy five thousand only) per month to the respondent/wife as maintenance for the minor daughter from the date of filing of the application and till the disposal of the petition. The petitioner/husband may clear arrears of maintenance by way of installments within three months. The petitioner/husband is further ordered to pay Rs.21,000/- (lump sum) to the petitioner/wife towards litigation expenses."
8. Before we proceed further, learned counsel for the parties will place their affidavits on record with regard to the arrears concerning payment of interim maintenance ordered by the Family Court.
9. We may note that even according to Mr Sandeep Chandna, counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/husband, there are arrears towards interim maintenance which the appellant/husband is required to liquidate.
10. List the appeal on 26.02.2024.
11. Meanwhile, learned counsel for the parties will ensure that the affidavits, as directed, are placed on record."
2. As would be evident, in the course of the proceedings held on 21.02.2024 it emerged that the appellant had not liquidated the arrears emanating from the order dated 17.01.2023 passed by the Family Court in an application moved by the respondent/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [in short, "1955 Act"].
2.1. It is in this context we had directed the learned counsel for the parties to file affidavits concerning arrears with respect to payment of interim maintenance ordered by the Family Court.
3. Although the affidavit of the respondent/wife is on record, the affidavit said to have been lodged on behalf of the appellant/husband is not on record. However, a hard copy of the affidavit filed by the appellant/husband has been placed before us.
4. We may note, even according to Mr Sandeep Chandna, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/husband, as per the terms of the order dated 17.01.2023
Timely maintenance payments and compliance with court orders are crucial in family court proceedings.
The court has the discretion to condone the delay in filing an appeal based on the reasons presented and can issue directions for the determination and payment of maintenance arrears.
The Family Court must consider maintenance applications on merits and take into account the appellant's statement of accounts at the time of disposal of the application.
Husband liable for maintenance; interim order set aside for fresh hearing on merits after arrears deposit.
A court must record evidence of both parties' income before ordering interim maintenance, ensuring fair proceedings in family law cases.
The court reinforced that maintenance proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act should be expedited and not used as a tool for delaying divorce proceedings.
The right to cross-examine witnesses is fundamental in maintenance proceedings, and its curtailment without just cause is legally impermissible.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.