Delhi High Court
Seema Satsangi vs Inderjeet Singh on 7 November, 2014
Author: Gita Mittal
$-6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 62/2013
% Date of decision : 07th November, 2014
SEEMA SATSANGI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. J.S. Rawat, Advocate
versus
INDERJEET SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)
C.M. Appl. 18784/2013 (delay in filing)
For the reasons stated, the delay of 53 days in filing the appeal is
condoned.
Applications stands disposed of.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 62/2013
1. The appellant has assailed the order dated 20th April, 2013 passed on
her application dated 10th January, 2011 under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act in HMA 319/2010.
2. The appellant wife had sought an order against the respondent
husband seeking interim maintenance for the two minor sons of the parties
aged 13 years and 14 years, respectively, who are residing in the care and
custody of the their mother. After considering the response of the
respondent as well as the documents placed before him, the learned Family
Court Judge has passed the order dated 20 th April, 2013 quantifying the
income of the respondent husband at Rs.15,000/- per month and directing
maintenance to be fixed at Rs.1500/- per month for each of the minor
children, bringing it to a total amount of Rs.3,000/- per month. While
passing the order the learned Family Court Judge also directed that payment
of this maintenance to the children shall be made from the date of the order
till the disposal of the main petition. In addition, the Court directed payment
of Rs.3,000/- to the appellant towards litigation expenses.
3. This order has been assailed by the appellant seeking enhancement of
the maintenance which was awarded to Rs.10,000/- per month and the
litigation expenses to Rs.25,000/-. Today a statement is made by Mr. J.S.
Rawat, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant does not press the
prayer for enhancement made in the appeal, but restricts the challenge to the
maintenance not having been awarded with effect from the date of the
application. It is an admitted position that the children were entitled to the
payment of the maintenance on the date on which the application was made.
4. There can be no dispute to the well settled proposition that the award
of maintenance is normally to be directed with effect from the date of the
application. Mere pendency of the adjudication on such application cannot
be utilised to deprive an applicant from the benefit of maintenance.
5. For this reason, we find force in the prayer of the appellant for grant
of the maintenance for the two minor sons with effect from the date from
which the application was made. Copy of the application placed on record
is supported by an affidavit dated 10th January, 2011. The application has
also been verified on solemn affirmation on the same date. Copies thereof
have been filed in the main petition, which appears to have been filed in the
year 2010.
6. In view of the above, it is directed as follows:
(a) The direction made in para 14 of the order dated 20 th April, 2013 shall
stand modified and the respondent is directed to pay a total amount of
Rs.3,000/- per month to the minor children towards maintenance from
the date of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage
Act till the disposal of the main petition, unless the order is varied for
any fresh facts and circumstances placed before the Family Court.
(b) The appellant shall also be entitled to the litigation expenses of
Rs.3,000/- as awarded by the learned Family Court Judge.
7. At request of learned counsel for the respondent, it is directed that the
maintenance in terms of this order shall be paid within five monthly equated
instalments commencing from 01st December, 2014.
8. This appeal is allowed in the above terms.
GITA MITTAL, J
J.R. MIDHA, J
NOVEMBER 07, 2014
rsk
