Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS No.

and Registrar’s order with Signatures

08.12.2025 F.A. No.18 of 2018 With F.A. No.19 of 2018 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel, holding brief of Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Mr. Philip D’souza, learned counsel for the respondent through Video Conferencing.

3. On 07.06.2023, this Court has directed the respondent to pay Rs. 25,000/- per month from June, 2023 onwards for maintenance of the son of the parties and list the case for 08.08.2023. Thereafter, on 08.08.2023 the events that took place is as follows:-

On 08.08.2023, the respondent submitted before the Court that he has already filed a special leave petition to assail the orders dated 22.05.2023 and 07.06.2023. Respondent did not pay the amount of maintenance. The Division Bench of this Court, on that date, observed as hereunder:-

“In our view, the filing of the SLP is a mere ploy to disobey the orders of this Court.”

The Court on that date issued a contempt notice to the respondent to show cause as to why contempt proceedings may not be drawn against the respondent for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the Court’s order and list the case for 24.08.2023.

On 24.08.2023, bailable warrants were issued for production of the respondent.

4. It appears that against the order dated 08.08.2023, the respondent preferred SLP Nos. 26232-26233 of 2023, which came to be dismissed on 08.12.2023. Yet despite dismissal of the SLP, the respondent still did not pay the maintenance amount.

5. On 08.10.2024, the respondent was again directed to make payment, but he failed to do so. On 24.03.2025, he once again sought an adjournment. On the last date i.e. on 01.09.2025, when questioned by the Court regarding non-payment, learned counsel for the respondent again sought time. On that occasion, this Court observed:

“the husband may give a demand draft of the balance amount and it may be sent to his wife or he may give it to the counsel in the Court, whatever the manner, the husband proposes to make payment.”

6. The respondent has flagrantly violated the orders of this Court. After the initial order, he repeatedly delayed making payments. Even after dismissal of his SLP in December 2023, nearly two years have passed without compliance. Though learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal has been pending for long and that no adjournment was sought by the appellant, the record shows that it is the respondent who has also sought adjournment and time for payment.

7. Be that as it may, today it is submitted that another SLP is being filed and, therefore, a further adjournment of seven days is sought.

8. Considering the respondent’s past conduct of non-compliance and repeated false assurances given to the Court, this Court would have no option but to issue recovery warrant for the amount due as arrears of land revenue. However, the Court refrains from issuing such warrant today as the seven days’ time is sought by the respondent.

9. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned and listed for 23.12.2025 along with connected appeal.

(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani J.)

08.12.2025 08.12.2025 Mamta