$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 40/2024 & CM APPL. 1177-78/2024, 75093/2025 SANJAY BHATIA .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Aman Hingorani, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Aditi Ladda, Adv.

versus SAMAKSHI BHATIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Malvika Rajkotia and Ms. Akriti Tyagi, Advs. (through VC).

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

O R D E R

% 27.01.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, challenges the order dated 09.12.2023 whereby, the learned Family Court has dismissed the application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC filed on behalf of the petitioner/defendant No.1 to implead the parents of the respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 herein in the plaint filed on her behalf.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the plaint, HAMA No.04/22, filed on behalf of the respondent titled as “Samakshi Bhatia & Anr. vs. Sanjay Bhatia & Ors.” had the following subject title and prayers respectively:-

“PETITION FOR MAINTENANCE AND SEPARATE RESIDENCE UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE HINDU ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956 AND FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION **** **** ****

a) Pay a sum of Rs. 4,63,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the Petitioner; or any other amount as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit keeping in mind the Respondent’s source of income and/or the expenses and costs of litigation, b) Pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the son Samarveer for his education and extracurricular activities as well as decent upbringing for a child of his age and status, c) Restrain the Respondents and their agents, servants or any other person acting on their behalf from forcibly removing her from her matrimonial home and interfere in her peacefully enjoying the property A-155, New Friends Colony, New Delhi or in an alternative accommodation of similar status be provided to her, d) Direct the Respondents to provide the Petitioner with a car, services of a driver and two full time maids, e) Pass any other or further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that learned Family Court while passing the impugned order did not take into account the judgment cited and relied upon by the petitioner in support of the said application. It is the case of the petitioner that to claim maintenance under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, it was incumbent on the respondent to demonstrate that she is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property or, she has no property of her own and is unable to obtain maintenance and has no source of income from her parents. It was submitted that the learned Family Court did not give any findings on the said aspect nor it has dealt with the judgments relied upon by the petitioner in the impugned order.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the plaint filed by the respondent No.1 herein is restricted to the estate of respondent’s late husband, and that the petitioner is creating hindrances with respect to her right of maintenance from her late husband’s estate, which is in control of the petitioner. It is the case of the respondents herein that no independent relief qua the petitioner herein has been claimed on behalf of the respondents and the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner would be adjudicated during the course of trial.

6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

7. Learned Family Court vide order dated 09.12.2023 while dismissing the aforesaid application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC read with Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, preferred on behalf of the petitioner, had observed as under:-

“18. As far as the application dated 20.11.2021 whereby it has been prayed to i