Manish Tomar vs Neelam Tomar
2024 Latest Caselaw 355 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Manish Tomar vs Neelam Tomar on 15 March, 2024

      HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                NAINITAL

     HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. RITU BAHRI
                       AND
       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PANKAJ PUROHIT

                      15TH MARCH, 2024

             Appeal from Order No. 104 of 2024

Manish Tomar                                ........Petitioner

                             Versus

Neelam Tomar                              ........Respondent


Counsel for the appellant.             :Mr. Deepak Petshali,
                                       learned counsel


JUDGMENT:

(per Ms. Ritu Bahri, C.J.)

The marriage of the parties in the present case was solemnized on 10.12.2006. There have two children from this marriage. Both the children are staying with the appellant-father. The grievance of the appellant is that vide order dated 24.12.2023, he has been directed to pay Rs. 8000/- on every date as travelling and lodging allowance to the respondent, which could not have been passed on the first date of hearing.

2. Since, as per the impugned order dated 21.12.2023, on the first date of their presence, the wife had put in appearance and the wife could have claimed maintenance by filing an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the first date itself passing an order of giving Rs. 8000/- as travelling expenses per hearing in the case, this order was not required to be passed, as there was no application claiming maintenance by the wife. This order is being set-aside.

3. A direction is being given to the Family Court that they should make a first attempt for settlement by sending the matter to the mediation alongwith both the children so that both the parents can make a parental plan and their children can meet the grand-parents as well, as per the judgment given by this Court in the case of Shruti Joshi Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, (WPPIL No. 28 of 2024), and the litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/- can be given by the appellant once.

4. Let the matter be referred for mediation and counselling.

5. Respondent's wife has liberty to claim maintenance by filing an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the appellant will only give Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses once and no payment on every day travelling expenses has to be given. Family Court will further refer this matter for mediation, keeping in view the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Shruti Joshi Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others (supra) where making a share parenting plan has been made mandatory for both the parties.

6. With the above observations, the appeal from order stands disposed of.

_____________ RITU BAHRI, C.J.

________________ PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.

Dt: 15TH March, 2024 UU/SK