Mohd. Kafil vs.sumbul

Mohd. Kafil vs Sumbul

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Feb 20, 2018

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1212922

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1212922
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Feb 20, 2018
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mohd. Kafil

Respondent

Sumbul

Excerpt

.....of the application (i.e. 26.10.2015) and further impugns order dated 06.07.2017, whereby costs of rs.5,000/- have been imposed on the petitioner for not complying with order dated 13.07.2016.2. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 13.07.2016 itself shows that the said order was passed without service of notice on the petitioner and without calling for a response from the petitioner. he contends that the said order has been passed without considering the respective income affidavits and capabilities of the parties.3. learned counsel, without prejudice, submits that even though the petitioner is not in a position to pay the said amount, however, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, he shall make some arrangements and subject to adjustment on an adjudication by the court, he shall pay the entire arrears of the amount assessed at the rate of rs.4,500/- per month with effect from 26.10.2015, i.e. rs.1,26,000/- in four instalments within a period of two months from today.4. learned counsel for the respondent is agreeable to the suggestion.5. in view of the above, the petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to pay a sum of rs.1,26,000/- to respondent in four crl.rev.p.611/2017 page 2 of 3 instalments of rs.31,500/- each payable on 26.02.2018, 12.03.2018, 02.04.2018 and 16.04.2018.6. the said payments will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and shall be subject to adjustment on an adjudication being made by the trial court.7. it has been informed that the next date before the trial court is 25.04.2018.8. since the parties have already filed their pleadings, the trial court is directed to consider the same and pass a final order, as expeditiously as possible, on the application of the respondent. in case, for any reason, the final order cannot be passed, the trial court shall endeavour to pass an order fixing ad interim maintenance on 25.04.2018.9. the petition is disposed of in the above.....

Full Judgment

Judgment delivered on:

20. 02.2018 $~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + MOHD. KAFIL CRL.REV.P.611/2017 ........ Petitioner

versus SUMBUL ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner

: Mr Manu Sishodia, Mr Mahendra Bairwa and Mr Abhishek Bansiwal. For the Respondent : None. CORAM:-

"HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT2002.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

(ORAL) Crl. M.A. 13386/2017(exemption) CRL.REV.P. Crl.M.A.13384/2017(delay in filing for 313 days) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 611/2017 & CM No.13385/2017(stay) & 1. The petitioner impugns order dated 13.07.2016, whereby the Trial Court has fixed ad interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.4500/- CRL.REV.P.611/2017 Page 1 of 3 effective from the date of the application (i.e. 26.10.2015) and further impugns order dated 06.07.2017, whereby costs of Rs.5,000/- have been imposed on the petitioner for not complying with order dated 13.07.2016.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 13.07.2016 itself shows that the said order was passed without service of notice on the petitioner and without calling for a response from the petitioner. He contends that the said order has been passed without considering the respective income affidavits and capabilities of the parties.

3. Learned counsel, without prejudice, submits that even though the petitioner is not in a position to pay the said amount, however, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, he shall make some arrangements and subject to adjustment on an adjudication by the Court, he shall pay the entire arrears of the amount assessed at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month with effect from 26.10.2015, i.e. Rs.1,26,000/- in four instalments within a period of two months from today.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent is agreeable to the suggestion.

5. In view of the above, the Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,26,000/- to respondent in four CRL.REV.P.611/2017 Page 2 of 3 instalments of Rs.31,500/- each payable on 26.02.2018, 12.03.2018, 02.04.2018 and 16.04.2018.

6. The said payments will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and shall be subject to adjustment on an adjudication being made by the Trial Court.

7. It has been informed that the next date before the Trial Court is 25.04.2018.

8. Since the parties have already filed their pleadings, the Trial Court is directed to consider the same and pass a final order, as expeditiously as possible, on the application of the respondent. In case, for any reason, the final order cannot be passed, the Trial Court shall endeavour to pass an order fixing ad interim maintenance on 25.04.2018.

9. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

10. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master. SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J February 20, 2018 ‘Sn’ CRL.REV.P.611/2017 Page 3 of 3

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2018 Same Parties Mohd. Kafil vs Sumbul Same Subject Education