Rajpal Singh vs Avleen Kaur @ Neetu
2017 Latest Caselaw 3567 Del

$~17
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      MAT.APP.(FC)108/2017 and CMs 22009-10/2017 & 22012-13/2017
       RAJPAL SINGH                                        ..... Appellant
                          Through : Mr. Nikhil Malhotra, Advocate

                          versus

       AVLEEN KAUR @ NEETU                                 ..... Respondent
                   Through : None.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
                    ORDER

% 24.07.2017

1. The appellant is aggrieved by an interim order dated 23.8.2016 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court (West District), Tis Hazari Court granting pendente lite maintenance @ Rs.25,000/- p.m. to the respondent and the minor child in her custody apart from litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-. The said amount has been directed to be paid by the appellant w.e.f.28.9.2011.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that before the date of passing the impugned order, the appellant was paying a sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m. collectively as maintenance to the respondent for herself and the minor child, which has now been enhanced to a sum of Rs.25,000/- p.m. for each of them. He submits that at the time of addressing arguments on the application for maintenance filed by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the appellant did not have in his possession any

document to establish that the respondent is gainfully employed and he has now been able to lay his hand on the said documents only after the impugned order came to be passed.

3. The appellant cannot be permitted to lay a challenge to the impugned order on the basis of the aforesaid documents that admittedly came in his possession much later. It is for the appellant to place the said documents before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court for a fresh consideration and ask for modification of the order dated 23.8.2016.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant seeks leave to withdraw the present appeal, while reserving the right of his client to file an appropriate application before the learned Family Court for seeking modification of the order dated 23.8.2016.

5. Leave, as prayed for, is granted. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, along with the pending applications. It is however clarified that the liberty granted to the appellant to approach the Family Court for modification of the impugned order dated 23.8.2016 will not preclude the Executing Court for implementing the said order, as per law.

HIMA KOHLI, J

DEEPA SHARMA, J JULY 24, 2017 sk