Deepak JaIn Vs. Charu Jain

Deepak Jain vs Charu Jain

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Mar 14, 2007

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/676794

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/676794
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: AR. Lakshmanan and; Altamas Kabir, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 14, 2007
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 1404 of 2007 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2936/2006) and Conmt. Pet. (C) No. 221 of
Subject: Family

Case Summary

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

Family Law - Maintenance - Challenge of - Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act - Addl. District Judge fixed an interim maintenance at the rate of 12,000 per month - On appeal, the High Court came to the conclusion that the trial court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that Rs. 12,000 should be paid by way of inte...

Key legal issue: Family
Acts & sections: Hindu Marriage Act - Sections 24

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Deepak Jain

Advocate Prabhakaran and; S. Rajappa, Advs

Respondent

Charu Jain

Advocate M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Adv. and ; Rajinder Mathur, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Hindu Marriage Act - Sections 24
Reported In: 2007(3)ALT31(SC); 2007(3)AWC3154(SC); I(2007)DMC576SC; [2008(1)JCR136(SC)]; (2007)3MLJ819(SC); 2007(4)SCALE399; (2007)10SCC229

Court's Analysis

Prior History: From the Judgment and Order dated 10.1.2006 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CM(M) No. 1720/2004

Excerpt

family law - maintenance - challenge of - section 24 of the hindu marriage act - addl. district judge fixed an interim maintenance at the rate of 12,000 per month - on appeal, the high court came to the conclusion that the trial court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that rs. 12,000 should be paid by way of interim maintenance - held, order under challenge suffers from no infirmity - appeal dismissed - code of civil procedure, 1908. order 38, rule 9 & order 40, rule 1: [tarun chatterjee & h.s. bedi, jj] attachment before judgment - property directed to be placed under receiver during pendency of suit however, no receiver was appointed - attachment continued supreme court appointed receiver and directed that in case possession was handed over, attachment would stand released. .....and also taking into consideration all the other annexures etc. came to the conclusion that the trial court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that rs. 12,000/- should be paid by way of interim maintenance.4. we have also carefully perused the impugned order and annexures and heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides. in our opinion, the order under challenge suffers from no infirmity. we, therefore, have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-husband. the appeal is accordingly dismissed.5. during the pendency of this appeal, this court as an interim measure on 17.02.2006, directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of the filing of the application and continue to pay till the disposal of this appeal. in view of the fact that the appeal is being dismissed, the said interim order is vacated and the appellant will now be liable to pay the entire amount pursuant to the order of adj, delhi. it is stated that the said interim order passed by this court has also not been complied with. we direct the appellant to pay the entire balance amount to the respondent, if any, within two weeks from today.6. in view of the order now passed, the contempt petition is also dismissed. we direct the trial court to dispose of h.m.a. case no. 149 of 2003 within three months from today. no costs.

Full Judgment

AR. Lakshmanan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard Mr. Prabhakaran assisted by Mr. S. Rajappa, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel for the respondent.

3. The above appeal is directed against the order dt.10.01.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in CM(M) No. 1720 of 2004. The said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed before the Delhi High Court against the order of Addl. District Judge, Delhi in H.M.A. Case No. 149 of 2003 whereby the said court had disposed of the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and fixed an interim maintenance at the rate of 12,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application together with litigation expenses of Rs. 11,000/-. Aggrieved against the said order, CM(M) No. 1720/2004 has been filed before the Delhi High Court. The High Court on considering all the averments made in the pleadings and also taking into consideration all the other annexures etc. came to the conclusion that the trial court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that Rs. 12,000/- should be paid by way of interim maintenance.

4. We have also carefully perused the impugned order and annexures and heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. In our opinion, the order under challenge suffers from no infirmity. We, therefore, have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-husband. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

5. During the pendency of this appeal, this Court as an interim measure on 17.02.2006, directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of the filing of the application and continue to pay till the disposal of this appeal. In view of the fact that the appeal is being dismissed, the said interim order is vacated and the appellant will now be liable to pay the entire amount pursuant to the order of ADJ, Delhi. It is stated that the said interim order passed by this Court has also not been complied with. We direct the appellant to pay the entire balance amount to the respondent, if any, within two weeks from today.

6. In view of the Order now passed, the Contempt Petition is also dismissed. We direct the trial court to dispose of H.M.A. Case No. 149 of 2003 within three months from today. No costs.

Same Court & Year Supreme Court of India · 2007 Same Parties Deepak Jain vs Charu Jain Same Subject Family Same Judge AR. Lakshmanan and; Altamas Kabir, JJ. Acts & Sections Hindu Marriage Act - Sections 24

Family