Delhi High Court
R B B vs Ltg S D B (Retd) on 15 January, 2018
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 15.01.2018
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 3/2018, CM APPL. 1465/2018 (condonation of delay 59
days in filing )
RBB ..... Appellant
Through: Mr Ranjay. N., Adv.
versus
LTG S D B (RETD) ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 1467/2018 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application is disposed off.
CM APPL. 1466/2018 (Condonation of delay 45 days in re-filing)
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 45 days in
re-filing the appeal is condoned.
The application is disposed off.
CM APPL. 1464/2018 (Stay)
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks leave to withdraw this
application.
The application is dismissed as withdrawn.
MAT F.C.3/2018 Page 1
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 3/2018
1. The present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act,
1984, assails a judgment and decree dated 11.07.2017, rendered by the
Principal Judge, Family Courts, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi, in HMA No.61212/2016 titled as "Col. Sat Dev Bajaj vs. Rina
Bains Bajaj and Anr." (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject petition'),
whereby, the petition seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of
'cruelty' under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
(hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') was allowed and decree of
dissolution of marriage was passed in favour of the respondent-
husband.
2. The solitary ground on which the appeal is pressed is that the
learned Family Court fell into error in disposing off the application
instituted by the appellant-wife under Section 24 of the said Act, on the
ground that appellant-wife had not pressed the same.
3. In respect of the sole submission made on behalf of the
appellant-wife, it would be pertinent to observe that during the
pendency of the trial of the subject petition, the appellant-wife had
instituted an application under Section 24 of the said Act, which came
to be dismissed by the then learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Delhi vide order dated 14.02.2002; on the ground that affidavit
and verification of the contents of the application, in accordance with
the extant Delhi High Court Rules, had not been filed along with the
said application. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
admits that the said order dated 14.02.2002 has attained finality.
MAT F.C.3/2018 Page 2
4. Further, it is observed that another application dated 13.11.2006
under Section 24 of the said Act was thereafter moved on behalf of the
appellant, which came to be determined by the Court of competent
jurisdiction on 24.03.2007; with a finding that the appellant was
responsible for the delay in disposal of the application. However, the
respondent-husband was called upon to file income-tax returns for the
last three years, along with the pay slip and Form-16. Further, in view
of the consideration that the respondent husband was bearing the
educational expenses of the daughter of the estranged couple, it was
opined that there was no urgency to pass any order for the maintenance
of the child. It is an admitted position that the said order dated
24.03.2007 has also attained finality. In this behalf, it would also be
necessary to note that neither of the parties have filed their income-tax
returns on affidavit, and the application which is sought to be re-
agitated before us now as not pressed by the appellant before the
learned Family Court since its institution; assertively in the year 2007.
5. In this view of the matter, in our considered view, it is late in
the day for the appellant to seek reopening of the issue of maintenance
pendente lite, having been lackadaisical in prosecuting it before the
learned Family Court. Needless to state that the appellant is at liberty to
initiate appropriate proceedings for any other reliefs as may be
permissible in accordance with law.
6. Therefore, the solitary submission made on behalf of the
appellant in relation to the grant of interim maintenance is not tenable
and devoid of any merit. The same is accordingly rejected.
7. No other point was urged before this Court.
MAT F.C.3/2018 Page 3
8. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order dated
11.07.2017 is upheld and the present appeal is dismissed, whilst
reserving liberty as afore-stated.
9. In view of the dismissal of appeal on merits, the pending
application also stands disposed off.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
(JUDGE)
DEEPA SHARMA
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 15, 2018
BG
MAT F.C.3/2018 Page 4
