##PAGE1##

Office Notes,

reports, orders

or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with

Signatures

FA No. 18 of 2018

With

FA 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.

3. In these appeals, by order dated

07.06.2023, this Court directed the respondent

to pay a sum of ₹25,000/- per month towards

maintenance of the son of the parties with

effect from June, 2023. The respondent has

consistently failed to comply with the said

order. The chronology of events subsequent to

the order dated 07.06.2023 has already been

noticed by this Court in its order dated

08.12.2023, which reads as follows:

“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.”

4. Today, when the matter is taken up,

learned counsel for the respondent submits

that the respondent has preferred a Special

Leave Petition against the order dated

01.09.2025.

5. It is pertinent to note that this

submission was made even on the previous

occasion. However, a perusal of the order dated

01.09.2025 would reveal that this Court did

not adjudicate any issue on merits on that

date. In fact, in paragraph 4 of the said order,

this Court merely required learned counsel for

the respondent