Full Judgement
Delhi High Court
Nitin Grover vs Kartika Grover & Ors. on 1 July, 2024
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 159/2024 & CM APPLs.11415/2024 and 18413/2024
NITIN GROVER
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Anil Goel, Advocate along with
Appellant-in-person
versus
KARTIKA GROVER & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Paul, Advocate with Mr.
Sushant Chaudhary, Advocate for R-1
along with R-1 in-person.
Ms. Rachita Garg, Advocate with Mr.
Apoorv Rastogi and Mr. Agam
Rajput, Advocates for R-4
Reserved on: 21st May, 2024
% Date of Decision: 1st July, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:
1. Present letters patent appeal has been filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent of the then High Court of Judicature at Lahore, which stands extended to the High Court of Delhi, impugning the order dated 01st February, 2024 passed by learned Single Judge in C.M. Appl. 46599/2024 (for clarification) in W.P.(C) No. 17386/2022 ('impugned order') whereby
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 159/2024 Page 1 of 16 By:Hemant Pratap Singh Signing Date:01.07.2024 17:58:36 the Appellant/husband has been directed to pay to Respondent No. 1/wife a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month as undertaken before the writ Court on 20 th December, 2022 pending final determination in the interim maintenance proceedings.
1.1. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 20 th December, 2022 had earlier disposed of the underlying writ petition recording the undertaking of the Appellant-husband that he will pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month to Respondent No. 1 to enable her to find alternate accommodation for herself and the minor daughter, as Respondent No. 1 simultaneously undertook to vacate the house property owned by her in-laws i.e., Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 1.2. The Respondent No. 1 has admittedly vacated the subject property in compliance with the order dated 20th December, 2022; however, the Appellant in this appeal now seeks modification of the direction issued to him to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month to Respondent No. 1 so as to maintain the appeal against the order dated 1st February, 2024.
2. The underlying writ was filed by Respondent No. 1 impugning the order dated 22nd November, 2022 passed by the learned Principal Secretary-
cum-Divisional Commissioner in Appeal bearing No. 248/2020/676-680 under the Rules framed under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ('MWPSCA'). Vide the said order, Respondent No. 1 was directed to vacate the premises being Ground Floor, SU-151, Pitampura, New Delhi-110088 ('subject property') subject to the Appellant alongwith Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 providing Respondent No. 1 and her minor daughter with alternate accommodation of equivalent status.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 159/2024 Page 2 of 16 By:Hemant Pratap Singh Signing Date:01.07.2024 17:58:36
3. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 20 th December, 2022 relying upon the statement made by the Appellant herein that he is ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the Respondent No. 1 to enable her (and the minor daughter) to find alternate accommodation. This order recorded in para nos. 20 and 21 that the Appellant will henceforth pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month to Respondent No. 1 and in turn Respondent No. 1 undertook to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the subject property to the parents of the Appellant i.e., Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
4. The order dated 20th December, 2022 was accepted by all parties. Respondent No. 1, in compliance with the order handed over the possession of the subject property to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in January, 2023 and the Appellant herein paid the sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the Respondent No. 1 initially for three months i.e., January to March, 2023. Thereafter, the Appellant unilaterally discontinued the payments on the plea that Respondent No. 1 has not secured any rented accommodation and the payment of Rs. 20,000/- per month was payable towards rental alone.
5. Aggrieved by the said non-payment of Rs. 20,000/- per month, the Respondent No. 1 initially filed an application on 6 th May, 2023 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court 2, (North West) District, Rohini, Delhi in CT. Case No. 18198/2016 ('Mahila Court') seeking a direction to the Appellant to pay Rs. 20,000/- in compliance with the order dated 20th December, 2022 passed by the writ Court, which was, however, dismissed by the Mahila Court vide order dated 20th May, 2023.
6. Therefore, Respondent No. 1 filed CM APPL. 46599/2023 in the underlying writ petition seeking clarification of the order dated 20 th
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 159/2024 Page 3 of 16 By:Hemant Pratap Singh Signing Date:01.07.2024 17:58:36 December, 2022 and a consequent direction to the Appellant herein to resume payment of Rs. 20,000/- per month. The said application has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 01st February 2024 and the Appellant has been directed to continue to make payment to Respondent No. 1 at Rs. 20,000/- per month.
7. The Appellant is aggrieved by the direction issued by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 1st February, 2024 and has also challenged the direction for payment of Rs. 20,000/- issued in the earlier order dated 20th December, 2022, in the present appeal.
Submissions of the counsel for parties
8. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the Appellant remains ready and willing to abide by the directions of the learned Single Judge issued vide order dated 20th December, 2022 inasmuch as he is willing to make payment of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the Respondent No. 1 as a monthly rental to enable her to find alternate accommodation. He states that however, in the absence of the Respondent No. 1 actually taking premises on rent, the said direction is not binding on the Appellant. He states that therefore, the Appellant was within his rights to stop making any further payment w.e.f. April, 2023.
8.1. He states that the order dated 20th May, 2023 passed by the Mahila Court upholding the submission of the Appellant that he is not liable to make a further payment of Rs. 20,000/- until Respondent No. 1 actually takes an alternate premises on rent is an appealable order under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('DVA'). He states that the learned Single Judge ought to have directed the Respondent
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 159/2024 Page 4 of 16 By:Hemant Pratap Singh Signing Date:01.07.2024 17:58:36 No. 1 to avail the said remedy and not entertain C.M. APPL. 46599/2023 which led to the passing of the impugned order dated 01 st February, 2024. 8.2. He states that the Respondent's application for grant of interim maintenance is pending before the Mahila Court and until the said application is decided, the direction to make payment of Rs. 20,000/- per month vide impugned order dated 01st February, 2024 was not warranted. He states that the Appellant (of his own volition) is paying school fee of Rs. 14,175/- per month for his minor daughter and is paying an annual premium of Rs. 14,991/- for the Mediclaim policy taken in the name of himself, Respondent No. 1 and their minor daughter. He states that the Appellant has also filed an application before the Mahila Court seeking visitation rights for the minor daughter and the same is pending adjudication. 8.3. He states that the Respondent No. 1 is well qualified and is, therefore, capable of earning more than the Appellant. He states that Respondent No. 1 is residing with her widower father in the latter's flat in a residential society and therefore, she does not have any requirement for renting out alternate accommodation. He states that, therefore, the direction of payment of Rs. 20,000/- per month in the order dated 1st February, 2024, be set aside.
9. In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 states that the Appellant's unilateral act of discontinuing payments w.e.f. April, 2024 is in willful violation of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20th December, 2022. He states that Respondent No. 1 was unable to take an alternate premises on rent as her mother had recently passed away leaving her father as a widower and the Respondent No. 1 herself did not have sufficient money to set-up an independent and separate
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 159/2024 Page 5 of 16 By:Hemant Pratap Singh Signing Date:01.07.2024 17:58:36 household. He states that Respondent No. 1 needed funds to buy household articles before taking an alternate premises on rent. 9.1. He states that though the Appellant and the Respondent No. 1 have been estranged since 2012, the Appellant has not paid any maintenance to the Respondent No. 1 in the past 12 years. He states that the minor daughter, who is now 15 years old, has sizeable living expenses, however, the Appellant is not contributing towards the said expenses despite repeated requests. He states that the amount paid by the Appellant towards the monthly school fee of the minor daughter is paltry considering that she is now studying in higher classes and hence has costs towards other expenses. 9.2. He states that the Appellant's contention as regards visitation with the minor daughter is misleading as it is the Appellant himself who has elected not to maintain any familial relationship with the daughter. He states that even though visitation was granted by the Trial Court, the Appellant failed to exercise the said visitation. He states that Respondent No. 1 has never opposed the Appellant's meeting with the minor daughter, however, now that she is grown up teenager, the decision rests with her. 9.3. He states that the Appellant is a man of sufficient means and being the only son of his parents is also the beneficiary of their wealth and the ruse of low income is nothing but a subterfuge to deny maintenance to the Respondent No. 1 and the minor daughter. He states that Appellant is a qualified Chartered Accountant practicing in Delhi and is suppressing the details of his income to mislead the Court. He states that though the Respondent No. 1 resides with her widower father presently, yet she requires maintenance for herself and her minor daughter.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 159/2024 Page 6 of 16 By:Hemant Pratap Singh Signing Date:01.07.2024 17:58:36
Findings
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. We may note, at the outset, at the request of the Appellant that he is willing to amicably resolve the disputes, we held an in-chamber meeting with the parties on 26th April, 2024. After the meeting, to encourage and facilitate a settlement, we also made an informal reference to a senior mediator attached to the Mediation Centre of the High Court. To re-build trust between the parties, we acceded to the request of Respondent No. 1 and directed the Appellant to make payment, for his minor daughter's school trip to Shimla, of about Rs. 14,500/- directly with the school on or before 27th April, 2024 i.e., the last date of deposit of charges. The Appellant expressed his willingness to make the deposit and assured the Court that the same will be done in a time bound manner. In view of the constructive effort exhibited by the parties to attempt settlement, vide order dated 26 th April, 2024 the parties were directed to seek adjournment in the pending interim maintenance proceedings before the Mahila Court.
12. Unfortunately, the Appellant willfully failed to deposit the Shimla school trip fee for his minor daughter with the school on 27th April, 2024 and consequently, the minor daughter was unable to undertake the school trip to Shimla. The said event led to the breakdown of the amicable settlement efforts made by this Court and, therefore, Respondent No. 1 filed an application CM APPL. No. 26422/2024 before this Court placing the aforesaid facts on record and seeking recall of the order dated 26 th April, 2024.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 159/2024 Page 7 of 16 By:Hemant Pratap Singh Signing Date:01.07.2024 17:58:36
13. The Appellant filed his advance reply to CM APPL. No. 26422/2024; however, on a perusal of the said reply the assertions made by the Respondent No. 1 were fortified and it was apparent that the Appellant willfully defaulted in making the payment of the fee towards the school trip causing undue emotional hurt to the minor child and the Respondent No. 1 herein. In these facts, this Court recalled its order dated 26 th April, 2024 and the appeal was set down for hearing.
14. The limited issue arising for consideration in this appeal is that the Appellant contends that his undertaking to make payment of Rs. 20,000/- per month as recorded by the learned Single Judge's initial order dated 20 th December, 2022 was conditional upon Respondent No. 1 taking premises on rent; and in the absence of Respondent No. 1 taking an alternate accommodation on rent, the said undertaking does not bind him and, therefore, the learned Singl Judge vide order dated 1st February, 2024 could not have directed the Appellant to continue to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month to Respondent No. 1.
15. It is a matter of record that the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20th December, 2022 recorded the submission of the Appellant that he is willing to maintain the Respondent No.1. The Divisional Commissioner as well vide order dated 22nd November, 2022 had directed the Appellant as well as Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to ensure that an alternate accommodation is provided to Respondent No. 1 and her minor daughter. The Respondent No. 1 prayed for payment of Rs. 20,000/- per month in lieu of vacating the subject property belonging to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In view of the said voluntary statements of the parties, while balancing the rights of the parents of the Appellant and Respondent No.1, the learned Single Judge issued
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 159/2024 Page 8 of 16 By:Hemant Pratap Singh Signing Date:01.07.2024 17:58:36 composite directions in the order dated 20th December, 2022 which read as under:
"22. In the facts and circumstances of this case, by applying the guidelines laid down in Vinay Verma (supra), considering that the husband is willing to maintain his wife, it is directed as under:
(i) Respondent No.4 - the husband shall pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month, on or before the 10th of every month, which shall be credited directly to the Petitioner's bank account. The details of the said bank account shall be provided by the ld. counsel for the Petitioner to the ld. counsel for the Respondent No.4, within five days.
(ii) The Petitioner shall handover vacant and peaceful possession of the subject property by 15th January, 2023, to the parents i.e., Respondent Nos.2 and 3, after clearing all the dues payable on the subject property by the Petitioner, such as electricity/water charges/etc.
23. If there is any default by Respondent No.4 in making monthly maintenance payment, the Petitioner is permitted to approach the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi, i.e., the Mahila Court where the Petitioner's complaint is stated to be pending."
(Emphasis Supplied)
16. It is a matter of record that Respondent No. 1 duly complied with the direction issued against her in paragraph 22(ii) of the order dated 20 th December, 2022 and handed over the vacant and peaceful possession of the subject property to the parents of the Appellant i.e., Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 However, the Appellant herein complied with the direction at paragraph 22(i) for a limited period from January to March, 2023 and thereafter unilaterally stopped the payments. In our considered opinion, the Appellant had no option to unilaterally withhold the payments of Rs. 20,000/- per month in the manner sought to be done without the prior leave of the learned Single Judge, who passed the order dated 20th December, 2022.
17. In these facts, the application i.e., CM APPL. 46599/2023 filed by the Respondent No. 1 in the underlying writ petition was maintainable as the
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 159/2024 Page 9 of 16 By:Hemant Pratap Singh Signing Date:01.07.2024 17:58:36 Appellant was seeking to interpret the order dated 20 th December, 2022 to the prejudice of the Respondent No. 1 and resile from the undertaking given to the Court. Since, the undertaking of the Appellant, which formed the basis of the order dated 20th December, 2022 was made before the learned Single Judge, the said Court was undoubtedly the appropriate forum for recording the reasons which weighed with the learned Single Judge while issuing direction of payment of Rs. 20,000/- to the Appellant vide order dated 20th December, 2022. This becomes amply evident from the reasons set out in para 11 of the impugned order dated 1st February, 2024.
18. The learned Single Judge has rejected the submissions of the Appellant and clarified that the Appellant remains bound to make payment of Rs. 20,000/- per month to Respondent No. 1, while at the same time reserving the rights of the Appellant as regards the final order of interim maintenance to be passed by the Mahila Court. The order dated 1 st February, 2024, thus, balances the rights of both Appellant and Respondent No. 1. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 1 st February, 2024 reads as under:
"11. This Court is of the opinion the mere fact that the Petitioner/wife chose to not take a rented accommodation, does not mean that the amount in terms of order dated 20th December, 2022 would not be paid to the her. The directions of the Court vide order dated 20th December, 2022 are categorical that even if it is presumed that there is a dispute between the husband/Respondent No. 4 and the Petitioner, there is an obligation upon the husband/Respondent No. 4 to maintain the Petitioner/wife, subject to any decision that may be given by the competent forum in respect of maintenance, etc. As recorded in the said order, the husband/Respondent No. 4 had consented to maintain the Petitioner/wife, and only then was she directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the subject property. Today, the husband/Respondent No. 4 cannot be allowed to renege on the commitment made before this Court on 20th December, 2022.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 159/2024 Page 10 of 16 By:Hemant Pratap Singh Signing Date:01.07.2024 17:58:36
12. Admittedly, the Petitioner/wife has left the matrimonial home and has handed over the vacant and peaceful possession to the in-laws. Under such circumstances, the Respondent No. 4/husband is bound to make the payment of Rs.20,000/- per month as directed vide order dated 20th December, 2022.
13. The ld. Mahila Court may take the above amount into consideration while fixing the interim maintenance as well. Any arrears which have not been paid, shall be paid within four weeks, failing which, action would be liable to be taken against the Respondent No. 4/husband.
14. Application is disposed of in these terms."
(Emphasis Supplied)
19. The Appellant herein does not dispute that he gave an undertaking to the writ Court on 20th December, 2022, that he will make payment of Rs. 20,000/- per month to Respondent No. 1 and the direction issued by the learned Single Judge on 20th December, 2022 is in consonance with the said undertaking. The Appellant, however, contends that the said amount was agreed to be paid towards alternate accommodation of Respondent No. 1 and not otherwise. The Appellant, therefore, contends that in the absence of any rental accommodation availed by the Respondent No. 1, the Appellant be exempted from making the said monthly payment.
20. In our considered opinion, this fine difference which the Appellant seeks to make out in his offer, is without any distinction as the Respondent No. 1's right to residence is a facet of maintenance. The Appellant is admittedly not making any payment towards maintenance to the Respondent No. 1 and the aforesaid direction of Rs. 20,000/- by the learned Single Judge is an ad-interim measure towards Appellant's liability of maintenance, which even otherwise has been made subject to the final order passed by the Mahila Court in the pending application.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 159/2024 Page 11 of 16 By:Hemant Pratap Singh Signing Date:01.07.2024 17:58:36
21. The direction to make payment of Rs. 20,000/- per month in the order dated 20th December, 2022 was based on the consent of the Appellant herein, who held out to the writ Court that he will maintain Respondent No. 1 and his minor daughter. It was this representation made by the Appellant, which persuaded the writ Court to direct the Respondent No. 1 to vacate the subject property and hand over the possession to in-laws. The Respondent No. 1 has already complied with the directions passed in the order dated 20 th December, 2022 and the Appellant by unilaterally stopping the payment of Rs. 20,000/- in fact has acted in breach of the undertaking given to the writ Court. The direction to Appellant to make payment of Rs. 20,000/- to Respondent No. 1 was within the jurisdiction of the writ Court as it was seeking to balance the rights of Respondent No. 1 and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under the DVA and the MWPSCA. The Appellant having led the writ Court and Respondent No. 1 that he will pay Rs. 20,000/- per month cannot resile from the said representation as Respondent No. 1 has already vacated the subject property.
22. In any event the direction to pay Rs.20,000/- per month was in lieu of Respondent No.1 giving up possession of the subject property to her in-laws which she has done.
23. We, therefore, find no ground for interfering in the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order(s) while balancing the equities between the Appellant, his parents i.e., Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on one hand and the Respondent No. 1 as well as her minor daughter on the other hand.
24. The Appellant's act of paying the monthly school fee of the minor daughter by itself is not sufficient to exonerate him of the liability to
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 159/2024 Page 12 of 16 By:Hemant Pratap Singh Signing Date:01.07.2024 17:58:36 maintain Respondent No. 1 and to provide for other additional needs of the minor daughter, who is now a fifteen years old teenager. The obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, even where she is earning some income as well as the obligation of the father to maintain his minor children has been enunciated by Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha And Anr.1 in the following terms:
"(c) Where wife is earning some income
90. The courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. The courts have provided guidance on this issue in the following judgments:
90.1. In Shailja v. Khobbanna [Shailja v. Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 308; See also the decision of the Karnataka High Court in P. Suresh v. S. Deepa, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 8848 : 2016 Cri LJ 4794 (Kar)] , this Court held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home. [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival. [Vipul Lakhanpal v. Pooja Sharma, 2015 SCC OnLine HP 1252 : 2015 Cri LJ 3451] 90.2. In Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha [Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 589] the wife had a postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufficient income, she would not require financial assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, and held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.
90.3. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale [Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 694] while relying upon the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha [Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 :
(2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 589] , held that neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance.
1
(2021) 2 SCC 324
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 159/2024 Page 13 of 16 By:Hemant Pratap Singh Signing Date:01.07.2024 17:58:36 90.4. An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family, as held by the Delhi High Court in Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani [Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174] . The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the court.
90.5. This Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan [Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 274 :
(2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 785] cited the judgment in Chander Parkash [Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174] with approval, and held that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife.
(d) Maintenance of minor children
91. The living expenses of the child would include expenses for food, clothing, residence, medical expenses, education of children. Extra coaching classes or any other vocational training courses to complement the basic education must be factored in, while awarding child support. Albeit, it should be a reasonable amount to be awarded for extracurricular/coaching classes, and not an overly extravagant amount which may be claimed.
92. Education expenses of the children must be normally borne by the father. If the wife is working and earning sufficiently, the expenses may be shared proportionately between the parties."
(Emphasis Supplied)
25. The Appellant's conduct in unilaterally withholding the payment of Rs. 20,000/- despite an undertaking given to the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20th December, 2022 and the untenable explanation given for not depositing the school trip fee of his minor daughter on 27 th April, 2024 evidences an obstinate approach on behalf of the Appellant intending to deprive the Respondent No. 1 and the minor daughter of their legal rights of maintenance. In fact, during the course of hearing, the Appellant stated that he is willing to continue to deposit Rs. 20,000/- in the Registry of this Court
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 159/2024 Page 14 of 16 By:Hemant Pratap Singh Signing Date:01.07.2024 17:58:36 but he is opposed to the same being released to the Respondent No. 1 and his minor daughter. This Court is unable to accept this submission of the Appellant which is neither fair nor equitable. In fact, this Court fails to appreciate the vehement opposition that Appellant exhibits in providing maintenance for Respondent No. 1 and his minor daughter.
26. The submission of the Appellant that Respondent No. 1 has an alternate remedy of appeal to challenge the order dated 20th May, 2023 passed by the Mahila Court and, therefore, she could not have maintained CM APPL. 46599/2023 does not persuade us. The Mahila Court vide order dated 20th May, 2023 only sought to interpret the direction issued by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20th December, 2022. The Respondent No. 1, feeling aggrieved by the said interpretation, elected to approach the writ Court, which had passed the order dated 20th December, 2022. In our opinion, the Respondent No. 1 had an option to approach the writ Court for clarification, as she had acted in compliance with the said order while vacating the subject property and the order dated 20 th December, 2022 assured the Respondent No. 1 that she would be paid Rs. 20,000/- per month. Thus, the impugned order dated 1st February, 2024 issued by the writ Court clarifying its order dated 20th December, 2022 does not suffer from any error and is in conformity with the facts which weighed with the writ Court while passing the initial order dated 20th December, 2022.
27. We, accordingly, find no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending applications are disposed of.
28. The Appellant was directed vide interim order dated 26th February, 2024 in the present appeal to deposit the outstanding arrears and vide order dated 27th March, 2024 was directed to continue to deposit the amount of
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 159/2024 Page 15 of 16 By:Hemant Pratap Singh Signing Date:01.07.2024 17:58:36 Rs. 20,000/- per month with the Registry of this Court. The Appellant states that he has complied with the said order and the amounts stand deposited. The Registry is directed to release the amounts deposited by the Appellant in this appeal to the Respondent No. 1 within one week from passing of this judgment by way of electronic bank transfer directly into her bank account. The counsel for Respondent No. 1 is directed to provide the Respondent No. 1's bank account details to the Registry within a period of three days from the passing of this judgment.
29. List the matter before Joint Registrar on 8th July, 2024 for compliance of the aforesaid direction.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JULY 01, 2024/msh/ms/akt
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 159/2024 Page 16 of 16 By:Hemant Pratap Singh Signing Date:01.07.2024 17:58:36
