Delhi High Court
Shivangi Kirti vs Yogesh Singh on 28 August, 2006
Author: V Sen
Bench: V Sen
JUDGMENT
Vikramajit Sen, J.
1. The exact date on which the Defendant was served with summons/notice of the present Suit need not be ascertained for the reason that he had chosen to file several applications in these proceedings as far back as on May 16, 2006. The Written Statement ought to have been filed by him within thirty days of service. An affidavit of service has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner stating that a complete set of papers were dispatched to the Defendant on 25.4.2006. They would have been received by the Defendant on or before 1.5.2006. On 10.7.2006 the Defendant was granted four weeks time within which to file the Written Statement which expired on 7th August, 2006.
2. In connected criminal proceedings the Defendant has been granted interim bail as far back as on 7.1.2006. The Defendant's bail was cancelled on 19.8.2006 by the Additional Sessions Judge. However, he was again granted interim protection by Order dated 23.8.2006. In those proceedings, parties have been directed to appear before the High Court in order to arrive at a settlement. Counsel for the Defendant is unable to disclose the terms or any suggestion made by the Defendant by way of an amicable settlement.
3. Ninety days have long expired from May 1, 2006. Even the time permitted by this Court on 10.7.2006 for filing Written Statement has expired. In Texstyles v. Kiran Overseas Export Limited 2004 VII AD (Delhi) 98, I had, with specific reference to the Delhi High Court Rules and Orders, held that Courts in Delhi do not have any discretion for extending time for filing Written Statement beyond ninety days. This view, however, stands modified by the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kailash v. Nanhku (2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 480 which are to the effect that the statutory amendments are directory in nature. Even in that judgment, however, it has been adumbrated that the permission or enlargement of time beyond ninety days would be justified in very rare cases and for extremely good reasons. The same view has been expressed in Salen Advocate Bar Association, T.N. v. Union of India (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 344. Even though four applications came to be filed by the Defendant on May 16, 2006, he has not bothered to file any application for further extension of time, an action that has been seen as essential by the Apex Court.
4. Keeping in view the fact that the Defendant had sufficient time to file four applications as far back as on May 16, 2006, and having failed to take advantage of the extended time granted by this Court on 10.7.2006, I find that sufficient reasons have not been disclosed for failure to file a Written Statement. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Defendant reiterates that the Defendant was not granted leave from his employer after July, 2006. It is apparent that although the Defendant has visited Delhi in August, 2006, he preferred not to file a Written Statement. Right to file the Written Statement is closed.
5. Court Fee of Rs. 1,20,000/- has been paid by the Plaintiff.
6. List all these applications for consideration and disposal on 13th September, 2006
IA No. 4395/2006
7. The averments in the Plaint are to the effect that the Defendant is receiving a salary of Rs. 1,41,000/- P.M. in addition thereto that the Defendant is receiving Rs. 40,000/- as rent from the Hauz Khas property. As has already been noted, Written Statement has not been filed. The averments made in the Plaint must therefore, be deemed to have been admitted. Nevertheless on a perusal of the several applications filed by the Defendant, it is clear that the Plaintiff's statement that rent of Rs. 40,000/- per month is receivable by the Defendant has not been controverter. The Plaintiff has also placed on record the offer of employment made by C.C.Chokshi & Co. on behalf of a multinational company. Counsel for the Defendant had admitted that the Defendant is in the employment of a multinational company. The basic salary offered by C.C.Chokshi & Co. is Rs.63,411/- per month; the gross salary of Rs. 1,41,667/-. After deducting 1/3rd as income-tax payable on this basic salary, a net sum of Rs. 42,000/- would be receivable by the Defendant towards monthly salaries. To this I must add the undisputed rent of Rs. 40,000/-. This aggregates to a monthly take-home income of Rs. 80,000/- per month approximately. In Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra 2004 (3) AD (DELHI) 253 I have expressed the opinion that the disposable income of the earning spouse should be divided/distributed keeping the number of members of the family in view and giving one extra share to the earning spouse. I see no reason to vary or modify that view. The income is, therefore, divisible into four parts, half to the Plaintiff and the other half to his wife and son.
8. Accordingly, Defendant is directed to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per month effective from 24.8.2006, the date on which full Court Fees has been paid by the Plaintiff. Counsel for the Plaintiff states that the interim maintenance may be deposited directly into Plaintiff's Account No. 24310047202 at Standard Chartered Bank, Lokhandwala, Mumbai. This is advisable so as to obviate any controversy on its tender or refusal.
9. At this stage Counsel for the Defendant states that this Order has been passed because the Plaintiff is the daughter of a Judge. Counsel for the Defendant will have to answer the relevancy of that statement to himself. I shall not deign to respond.
10. The application stands disposed of accordingly.
