Delhi High Court
Pramod Bajaj vs Rakhee on 14 May, 2012
Author: Veena Birbal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 1069/2010
% Date of Decision: 14.05.2012
PRAMOD BAJAJ ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. P. Norula with Ms. Prerna Mehta,
Advs.
versus
RAKHEE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Jai Bansal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
VEENA BIRBAL, J. (ORAL)
*
CM(M) No. 1069/2010
1. The petitioner/husband has challenged impugned order dated
04.08.2010 by which maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 15,000/- per month
has been awarded to respondent/wife and Rs. 5500/- has been awarded as
litigation expenses.
2. On 23.02.2011, this court issued directions to the parties to file
photocopy of the bank accounts held by them for the past 3 years and they
were also directed to place on record Income-Tax Returns for the past 3
years. Both the parties have filed the documents pursuant to the order of this
court. It is pointed out that the petitioner/husband was suspended on
16.12.2009 and it has also been pointed that he was reinstated in
October, 2010. Learned counsel for petitioner/husband has further submitted
that during suspension, the wages were less. The material has been placed
on record so substantiate the allegations.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner/husband has submitted that when
application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was first taken up
for arguments, the reply to the said application as well as documents could
not be filed by the petitioner/husband and only oral submissions were made
on his behalf. It is submitted that in the impugned order only one side
picture is there.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner/husband has submitted that
petitioner/husband could not put forward the reply as well as documents in
the trial court record due to reasons beyond his control. It is submitted that it
will be appropriate if the matter is remanded back and opportunity is given
to the petitioner/husband to place on record the reply as well as relevant
documents to substantiate his stand.
5. Counsel for respondent/wife has fairly conceded to the submissions
made by the petitioner/husband.
6. With the consent of the parties and for effective disposal of the
application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the impugned order
is set aside, subject to cost of Rs. 15,000/-. It is pointed out that the matter is
listed before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court on 28.05.2012. On
the said date, the petitioner/husband will pay cost to the respondent. On the
said date, learned Principal Judge, Family Court will give time to the
petitioner/husband for riling reply which will not exceed more than 3 weeks.
Along with reply, the petitioner/husband shall file all the documents which
he has filed before this court. The respondent/wife shall also file the
documents which she has filed pursuant to the directions of this court dated
23.02.2011 and any other document which she feels appropriate for disposal
of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned
Principal Judge, Family Court shall also give an opportunity to
respondent/wife for filing rejoinder in response to the reply of
petitioner/husband.
7. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court shall try to expedite the
hearing on application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act and, if
possible, shall dispose of the same within 3 months.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
CM Nos. 8735/2012 & 8736/2012
In view of the order on the main petition, no further orders are
required on these applications.
The same stand disposed of accordingly.
VEENA BIRBAL, J
MAY 14, 2012
kks
