$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: 25.03.2025 + CS(OS) 2338/2013 SOHNU MOHAN .....Plaintiff Through: Mr Anil Sharma, Mr Sankalp Mishra and Mr Arpit Sharma, Advocates.

versus RAMONA JIND & ORS .....Defendants Through: Mr S. Santanam Swaminadhan and Mr Kartik Malhotra, Advocates for D-1.

Mr Rahul Sharma and Mr Darsh Bansal, Advocates for D-2.

Mr Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Advocate with Mr Arvind Bhatt, Advocates for D-5 & D-6.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.

I.A. 40059/2024 (by the defendant no.2 under Section 151 CPC

1. The present application has been filed by the defendant no. 2 seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) Direct the Plaintiff and / or the Defendant No.5 / DefendantNo.6 to immediately pay the fifth semester college fees of the Defendant No.2 amounting to $46,079/- USD directly to Barnard College of Columbia University in New Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NARENDRA SINGH CS(OS) 2338/2013 Page 1 of 33 York, USA, and other living and medical expenses amounting to approx.$3,300/- per month directly to the Defendant No.2 in USA; and (b) Direct the Plaintiff and / or the Defendant No.5 / DefendantNo.6, to either jointly or severally, pay the future maintenance and educational expenses of the Defendant No.2 as set out in paras 44 to 46 of the Counter Claim of the Defendant No.2 in a timely manner;

(c) Charge on the properties of the HUF, as set out in para 49 of the Counter Claim of the Defendant No.2, be created for the amounts to be paid to the Defendant No.2 /Counter Claimant;

and (d) Award cost of the present Application to the Defendant No.2/Counter Claimant”

2. The brief facts which are borne out from the plaint are that the plaintiff is the son of defendant no. 5. He was born as a member of the defendant no.6/HUF, of which defendant no.5 has been the karta since 1977. 3. On 30.10.2000, the plaintiff got married to the defendant no. 1 at Delhi. Soon thereafter, the defendant no. 1 moved to the USA to join the plaintiff who was settled there.

4. It is stated in the plaint that after the marriage, the defendant no. 1 had become a member of the defendant no. 6/HUF and a farm at Aya Nagar was purchased in her name out of the funds of the defendant no. 6.

5. It is also pleaded case of the plaintiff that in the year 2002, pursuant to a family settlement agreed upon by the parties, the plaintiff along with the defendant no. 1 got separated from the defendant no. 6/HUF. It was also settled that the plaintiff would get a residential flat and the Aya Nagar farm in lieu of his share in the defendant no. 6/HUF. Resultantly, a residential flat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NARENDRA SINGH CS(OS) 2338/2013 Page 2 of 33 at S-41, Second Floor, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi was purchased in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant no.1. Hence, the plaintiff ceased to be a coparcener of the defendant no. 6/HUF from the year 2002.

6. On 07.07.2004, out of the wedlock of the plaintiff and the defendant no.1, a daughter i.e. defendant no. 2 was born in the USA and became the member of the plaintiff‟s HUF and on 12.09.2008, a son i.e. defendant no. 3 was born and as such, he also became a coparcener in the plaintiff‟s HUF.

7. In October, 2012, the defendant no.1 filed a petition against the plaintiff in the Family Court, Saket Courts, under the provisions of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short „the DV Act‟).

8. Thereafter, in the year 2013 the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking declaration that the aforementioned properties situated at S-41, Second Floor, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi and agricultural land of Aya Nagar be declared as properties owned by the Joint Hindu Family comprising of the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 1 to 3.

9. The present suit is still at the stage of completion of pleadings as the parties were trying to settle their dispute through mediation. However, the mediation has now failed.

10. In this backdrop, the present