Manoj Kumar vs.sushma

Manoj Kumar vs Sushma

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Apr 12, 2018

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1214172

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/1214172
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Apr 12, 2018
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Manoj Kumar

Respondent

Sushma

Excerpt

.....case of the appellant before the court was that though the respondent resigned from her job at blazeflash courier on 30th june, 2011, on the date when she filed an application before the learned judge family court i.e. on 2nd may, 2011 under section 24 of the hindu marriage act, she falsely claimed that she was unemployed. case of the respondent before the learned judge family court was that she had left her job on 28th april, 2011 crl.a.no.1168/2016 page 1 of 2 and was unemployed at the time of filing of the application for interim maintenance as well as at the time of grant of interim maintenance i.e. 12th july, 2013.3. the only document to support his claim relied upon by the appellant is the form of the respondent under the employees’ pension scheme, 1995 wherein the date of leaving service, if any, by the respondent has been mentioned as 30th june, 2011. in the application, the respondent stated that the job she was doing had to be discontinued on account of minor son being born and his care and welfare was the utmost priority of the respondent. in support of the contention, the respondent has placed on record the resignation letter dated 28th april, 2011. from the evidence on record, it is apparent that though the date of leaving of service of the respondent has been mentioned as 30th june, 2011 but she had resigned from the same on 28th april, 2011. thus, the learned trial court rightly rejected the application of the appellant under section 340 cr.p.c. for the reason if the acceptance of resignation from the job has been shown as 30th june, 2011 that would not make the claim of the respondent false for the reason she had left the job on 28th april, 2011 and only thereafter filed the application for maintenance on 2nd may, 2011 and was granted interim maintenance only on 12th july, 2013 when admittedly she was not in employment. this court finds no ground to interfere in the impugned order.4. appeal is dismissed. (mukta gupta) judge april12 2018.....

Full Judgment

* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on: April 12 , 2018 CRL.A.1168/2016 MANOJ KUMAR ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Vijay Shankar, Advocate with Appellant in person SUSHMA versus Represented by: Mr.Arvind Nagar, Advocate ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.

(ORAL) Crl.M.A.No.19109/2016 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 28 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application is disposed of. Crl.A.No.1168/2016 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 30th July, 2016 dismissing the application of the petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C. by the learned Family Court, Dwarka, the appellant prefers the present appeal.

2. Case of the appellant before the Court was that though the respondent resigned from her job at Blazeflash Courier on 30th June, 2011, on the date when she filed an application before the learned Judge Family Court i.e. on 2nd May, 2011 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, she falsely claimed that she was unemployed. Case of the respondent before the learned Judge Family Court was that she had left her job on 28th April, 2011 Crl.A.No.1168/2016 Page 1 of 2 and was unemployed at the time of filing of the application for interim maintenance as well as at the time of grant of interim maintenance i.e. 12th July, 2013.

3. The only document to support his claim relied upon by the appellant is the form of the respondent under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 wherein the date of leaving service, if any, by the respondent has been mentioned as 30th June, 2011. In the application, the respondent stated that the job she was doing had to be discontinued on account of minor son being born and his care and welfare was the utmost priority of the respondent. In support of the contention, the respondent has placed on record the resignation letter dated 28th April, 2011. From the evidence on record, it is apparent that though the date of leaving of service of the respondent has been mentioned as 30th June, 2011 but she had resigned from the same on 28th April, 2011. Thus, the learned Trial Court rightly rejected the application of the appellant under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for the reason if the acceptance of resignation from the job has been shown as 30th June, 2011 that would not make the claim of the respondent false for the reason she had left the job on 28th April, 2011 and only thereafter filed the application for maintenance on 2nd May, 2011 and was granted interim maintenance only on 12th July, 2013 when admittedly she was not in employment. This Court finds no ground to interfere in the impugned order.

4. Appeal is dismissed. (MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE APRIL12 2018 mamta Crl.A.No.1168/2016 Page 2 of 2

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2018 Same Parties Manoj Kumar vs Sushma Same Subject Education