Delhi High Court
Sarvesh Saharawat vs Poonam Tarawati on 22 March, 2012
Author: Veena Birbal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 1151/2011
% Date of Decision: 22.03.2012
SARVESH SAHARAWAT ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms. Beenashaw N. Soni, Adv.
versus
POONAM TARAWATI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Sanjay Singhal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
VEENA BIRBAL, J.(ORAL)
*
1. Affidavits as directed vide order dated 30.09.2011 have not been filed
by both the parties.
2. A very short point is involved in the present case.
3. A divorce petition has been filed by the respondent/wife against the
petitioner/husband before the learned trial court which is pending
adjudication. On 22.11.2010, the respondent/wife had made a grievance
before the learned trial court that she alone is bringing up the child and
husband is not contributing even towards the educational expenses of the
child. She had further stated that she had paid the educational expenses of
the child for 3 quarters and a sum of Rs. 35,000/- has been paid by her. As
the application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred
to as „the Act‟) was pending disposal, on the hardship being faced by
respondent/wife, court passed the impugned order dated 22.11.2010 wherein
the direction was issued to petitioner/husband to deposit the school fee and
other expenses of the child from the said date i.e. 22.11.2010 till the disposal
of application under Section 24 of the Act. The relevant portion of the said
order is as under:-
"...........................................................
............................................................
............................................................
Mother has paid the educational expenses of the
child for 3 quarters and a sum of Rs. 35,000/- has
been paid on the part of the petitioner. It is trite
that bearing of educational expenses and other
expenses of the child is the responsibility of the
father and the mother. S ince mother in this case
has exceeded her liabilities by paying the school
fees of three quarters. I deem to deposit the school
fees and other expenses of the child Baby Ridhima
Sherawat of Sanskar Nursery School, Pocket-1,
Sector 24, Rohini, Delhi-110085 from today
onwards till the disposal of the application u/s 24
of the HMA."
4. During arguments, it has been informed that the application under
Section 24 of the Act has already been disposed of by the learned trial court
by a separate order. Vide impugned order dated 22.11.2010, the court had
only issued directions for bearing the school expenses of the child
considering the fact that in the past wife alone had been bearing the same.
These are the expenses only for a few months.
5. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, I do not find any
illegality or infirmity in the impugned order which calls for interference of
this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India.
It is clarified that the impugned order as well as this order shall have
no bearing in case petitioner chooses to challenge the order under Section 24
of the Act.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
CM No. 18414/2011 (stay)
In view of the order on the main petition, no further orders are
required on the present application.
The same stands disposed of.
VEENA BIRBAL, J
MARCH 22, 2012
kks
