Delhi High Court - Orders
Parvin Jain vs Anju Jain & Anr on 22 December, 2021
Author: Vipin Sanghi
Bench: Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh
$~31.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 124/2021
PARVIN JAIN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Y.P. Narula, Senior Advocate
alongwith Mr. Ujas Kumar,
Advocate.
versus
ANJU JAIN & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Anu Narula, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 22.12.2021 C.M. No. 46879/2021 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 124/2021 and C.M. No. 46878/2021
1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal to assail the order dated 10.11.2021 passed by the Family Court in Mt. No. 308/2020. The impugned order reads as follows:-
"The detailed order of this Court passed on 09.11.2021 have· been perused. Vide reasoned order, Court has dealt with· all the pending applications and has issued appropriate directions for due compliance of order dated 01.03.2021. Reply on behalf of respondent in terms of directions of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:23.12.2021 17:11:02 Court, has been filed. Copy supplied to petitioner. Detailed submissions have been made by both the Counsels in respect of non-compliance by the opposite party in respect of filing of Affidavit of Income, Assets and liabilities of the parties, in strict compliance of directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
The Court has carefully perused the progress of the present case, in particular, in terms of order of the Court dated 24.09.2021. Let the petitioner file rejoinder to the reply within six weeks. Both parties are directed to file ·their respective affidavits· of Income, Assets and liabilities, as per Law. Affidavit of Financial status of petitioner filed in the drop box. Ahlmad is directed to tag the same in the. case file. Copy supplied to Ld. Counsel for respondent.
Ld. Counsel for respondent has pressed the aspect of non- · maintainability of the present application qua one of the. petitioners. It is considered that present petition U/s. 125 Cr. PC. On behalf of petitioner no.1, who is wife of the respondent and petitioner no.2, who is son of respondent. Respondent is the husband/father of petitioners and the question about his liability to maintain them, shall be determined, as per law. Accordingly, at this stage, there is no preliminary impediment on the aspect of maintainability of the petition, as per law, which shall be accordingly, taken up for progress/disposal, as per law. No case made out for hearing or framing any preliminary issue.
The other objection on maintainability has been heard, as submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent. It is submitted that the alleged order of Hon'ble High court of Delhi, relied upon by the petitioners, are not operational in view of the alleged stay on the same. The contentions and counter-contentions shall be heard, during hearing of the maintenance application/petition, as per entitlement.
Let rejoinder, if any, be filed within six weeks. Affidavit of Financial Status as directed be filed by the respondent within four weeks with copy to be supplied to the petitioner/Ld. Counsel. Case to come up .for completion of pleadings, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:23.12.2021 17:11:02 arguments on interim application and further proceedings, for 25.04.2022."
2. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Family Court has not dealt with any significant aspect in the matter and has not ruled on the rights of the parties. Clearly, the impugned order is not a judgment as understood in the light of Shah Babulal Khimji Vs. Jayaben D. Kania & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 1786. Under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, the appeals are maintainable before this Court from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, both on facts and on law. The Family Court has neither decided the respondents' application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., nor rejected the appellant's objection on maintainability of such an application on behalf of the major son. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Family Court has left all these aspects to be decided at the appropriate stage. Therefore, the present appeal is clearly not maintainable at this stage.
3. We may also place reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Manish Aggarwal Versus Seema Aggarwal and Ors., FAO No.388/2012, 192 (2012) DLT 714 in this regard.
4. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J JASMEET SINGH, J DECEMBER 22, 2021 kd Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:23.12.2021 17:11:02