Delhi High Court - Orders
Natwar Lal Verma Alias Vijay vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 17 January, 2022
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 246/2021 &
CRL.M.A. 12369/2021 (Stay)
NATWAR LAL VERMA ALIAS VIJAY ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr Shafiq Khan, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr Amit Gupta, APP for the State.
Mr Anurag Bindal, Mr R. K. Bindal
and Mr R. S. Aggarwal, Advocates
for R-2 along with R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 17.01.2022 The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 8th April, 2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Dwarka (South West), whereby the application of the petitioner herein seeking setting aside of the order dated 22nd October, 2018 whereby the right of the petitioner to file the written statement and income affidavit was closed, was dismissed, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
2. After notice was issued to the parties, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 pointed out the gross misconduct of the petitioner which amounted to abuse of the process of court as every time the petitioner had been avoiding the process of law. It was pointed out that the petitioner Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P.246/2021 PageGUPTA1 of 3 Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA Signing Date:18.01.2022 20:20:55 could be served only by way of publication whereafter he entered his appearance before the court for the first time and despite repeated opportunities after the appearance on 14th December, 2016, the petitioner till date neither filed his written statement nor the income affidavit. Thus, when this petition came up before this Court on 5th January, 2022, learned counsel for the petitioner undertook that he will file the written statement and income affidavit in proper format within one week and the matter was re- notified.
3. Considering the fact that in the absence of proper written statement and income affidavit, learned Trial Court will not be able to arrive at a just decision of fixing the maintenance, this Court deems it fit to set aside the impugned order, however, subject to cost in view of the gross conduct of the petitioner as noted above in delaying the proceedings.
4. Consequently, the order dated 8th April, 2021 dismissing the application of the petitioner under Order 9 Rule VII CPC as also the order dated 22nd October, 2018, whereby the right of the petitioner to file the written statement was closed are set aside to this extent subject to the petitioner paying depositing a cost of ₹50,000/- in the account of the respondent no.2 herein within two weeks from today. It is clarified that on the next date of hearing, that is, 10th February, 2022 before the learned Family Court, if the learned Family Court finds that the cost as directed by this Court has not been paid by the petitioner to the respondent no.2, the written statement and income affidavit be not taken on record and the matter be proceeded, thereafter, in accordance with law in the absence of written statement and income affidavit.
5. Considering the manner in which the petitioner has avoided the Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P.246/2021 PageGUPTA2 of 3 Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA Signing Date:18.01.2022 20:20:55 process and delayed the fixation of the maintenance, the learned Trial Court is requested to hear the matter expeditiously and decide the same as expeditiously as possible.
6. It is clarified that the sum of ₹50,000/- awarded as cost towards the delay, mental agony caused to the respondent no.2 and will not be treated as part maintenance.
7. Petition and the pending application are disposed of.
8. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
MUKTA GUPTA, J
JANUARY 17, 2022
MK
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.246/2021 PageGUPTA3 of 3
Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE
MUKTA
Signing Date:18.01.2022
20:20:55