Delhi High Court
Anu Rani vs Vishwantra Dhama on 15 July, 2019
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 15.07.2019
+ CRL.REV.P. 624/2019
ANU RANI ..... Petitioner
versus
VISHWANTRA DHAMA ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Mutreja, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Sheenu Chauhan, Adv.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
15.05.2019
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 12.03.2019 whereby the trial
court has listed the matter for evidence.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court
had earlier heard the arguments on interim maintenance application
and listed the matter on 26.10.2018 for orders.
3. On 26.10.2018, directions were issued to the parties to file their
income affidavits and the matter was adjourned to 29.11.2018. On
29.11.2018, the trial court noticed that the income affidavits of both
the parties had been filed and thereafter the matter was listed for
mediation, however, mediation was not successful and the trial court
thereafter listed the matter for evidence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no order on
interim maintenance application has been passed by the trial court and
the matter has been fixed for evidence.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that
maintenance has been awarded in the proceedings initiated by the
petitioner under Domestic Violence Act and the petitioner has filed
several proceedings against the respondent and the respondent has not
filed any proceedings as such the petitioner is not entitled to grant of
any maintenance.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent
has not even complied with the orders passed under the Domestic
Violence Act and the cheque was also dishonoured and thereafter the
respondent has stopped appearing and has been proceeded exparte.
7. In my view, it is incumbent upon the trial court to consider the
application for grant of interim maintenance. Whether the trial court
grants or declines to grant interim maintenance would depend upon
the facts and circumstances of a case but the trial court should not
delay or refuse to decide an application seeking interim maintenance.
8. Final adjudication of the maintenance application is dependent
upon parties leading evidence and may take some time. If the Trial
Court declines or delays disposal of the application for grant of
interim maintenance, it would defeat the very purpose of the
enactment. Maintenance is granted to a wife/dependant who is unable
to maintain herself and if there is delay in disposing of the application
for grant of interim maintenance, the wife/dependent would be
without any support and would not be able to survive and as such it is
necessary that such an application is disposed of at the earliest.
9. The order sheet reveals that arguments had been heard by the
trial court on interim maintenance application but the main case was
listed for evidence without disposing of the application for interim
maintenance. The Trial Court, as noticed above, should have decided
on the plea of grant of interim maintenance with promptitude.
10. The objections raised by learned counsel for the respondent are
pleas on merits of the matter, which are yet to be adjudicated upon by
the trial court and are not relevant for the disposal of the present
petition.
11. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The trial court is
directed to decide the application seeking interim maintenance within
a period of one month from the next date of hearing before the trial
court i.e. 02.08.2019.
12. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor
expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions of either
parties on the award of interim maintenance.
13. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
14. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
JULY 15, 2019 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
'rs'
