Geeta Dhingra vs Kulmohan Singh Dhingra
2000 Latest Caselaw 654 Del

JUDGMENT

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. On 12.1.2000 I had ordered that I.P.A 29/1999 be listed before another Bench. Subsequently, in the following month the present application has been filed seeking a clarification whether by the order dated 5.11.1999 the Court had granted interim maintenance for three months or whether the maintenance was to be paid thereafter. Since a clarification of my order was prayed for the application has been relisted before me.

2. In my view the application is misconceived. No doubt, it is on interim order This is for the reason that detailed arguments are yet to be addressed by the respective Counsel for the parties. The operative part of the order is that the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 7,5()0/- per month effected from September, 1999 without prejudice to the contentions to be raised by them. Subsequently, on 9.2.2000 S.K. Aggarwal, J. had directed that this amount, i.e. Rs. 7,500/- be paid every month till further orders. Even if there was any clarification required in my order dated November 5, 1999, the controversy was set at rest by the subsequent order dated 9.2.2000. The application is, therefore, dismissed.

I.P.A. 29/1999:

3. The matter be listed before S.K. Aggarwal, J. who was seized of the matter, after obtaining appropriate orders from the Judge, Incharge, Original Side on 14th July, 2000.