JUDGMENT

Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J.

CM No. 35332/2018 (Delay)

The present application has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 78 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

The application stands disposed of.

C.M. 35330/2018 (exemption)

Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

MAT.APP.(F.C) 221/2018 & C.M. 35331/2018 (stay)

1. In the present appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the appellant/wife is aggrieved by an order dated 19.03.2018 (hereinafter the 'Impugned Order') passed by the Family Court, whereby the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955(hereinafter referred to as `HMA') in the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA was dismissed.

2. The brief background leading to the filing of the present appeal is that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 17.11.2009 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. No issue was born out of the wedlock. A petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA was filed by the respondent, seeking divorce, against the appellant. During the pendency of the said petition, the appellant moved an application under Section 24 of the HMA thereby claiming maintenance as well as litigation expenses from the respondent. The said application was kept in abeyance by the Principal Judge vide its order dated 27.01.2017 till the recording of the evidence of the respondent in order to ascertain the appellant's income as the same was disputed. After the income statements of the parties were brought on record, the said application was dismissed by the Family Court vide its order dated 19.03.2018 after perusal of the evidence and necessary facts on record. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

3. Ms. Priyanka Garg, the learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the learned Single Judge committed an error in dismissing the said application moved by appellant in the petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA vide order dated 19.03.2018 and that such findings were based more on hypothetical assumption of vital and necessary facts, based on mere surmises; that the respondent threw the appellant out of her matrimonial home and filed a divorce petition on the false grounds of cruelty; that the income affidavit as well as the Income tax return filed by the respondent shows superfluous expenditures and losses incurred by him so as to avoid the liability to pay maintenance; that the learned Judge, Family Court (South East), Saket, New Delhi erred in not recalling the order dated 27.01.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge while passing an order dated 19.03.2018. In order to substantiate his case, the learned counsel relied in the case of Vinod Dulerai Mehta v. Kanak Vinod Mehta reported in 1989 SCC Online Bom 112, Smt. Renu Jain v. Mahavir Prasad Jain reported in AIR 1987 Delhi 43 and Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun reported in (1997) 7 SCC 7.

4. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record.

5. On the basis of the factual background of the present case, it is relevant to produce Section 24 of HMA. Section 24 of HMA states:

"24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.-

Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable:

[Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the procee