Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Surendra Fatumal Ramvani vs Janaki Nanaki Alias Karishma on 2 July, 2019
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq, Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2983/2018
Surendra Fatumal Ramvani S/o Sh. Fatumal, Aged About
Major, Religion Hindu, R/o B-44, Shriji Prakash Nagar,
Nigamnagar Opposite Janta Nagar, Chandkhera, Ahmedabad,
Gujrat India
----Appellant
Versus
Janaki @ Nanaki @ Karishma D/o Moolchand Soni, W/o
Surendra Fatumal Ramvani, Aged About Major, Reli, R/o House
No. 230, Vinoba Vihar, Model Town, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur
Rajasthan 302107
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 02/07/2019 There is delay of 115 days in filing of the appeal. Application No. 1450/2018 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing of the appeal is condoned.
This appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband against order dated 06.01.2018 passed by the Family Court No. 1, Jaipur (for short 'the Family Court') under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') whereby the appellant-husband has been directed to pay to the respondent- (Downloaded on 03/07/2019 at 10:36:54 PM)
(2 of 3) [CMA-2983/2018] wife a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance during pendency of the application under Section 13 of the Act filed by the respondent seeking divorce. It has been further directed that the aforesaid amount shall be inclusive of the amount of Rs. 7,000/- already ordered to be paid to the respondent by the court under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments submitted that the learned Family Court has wrongly observed that the admitted position before the Court was that the appellant was staying in a joint family and their ancestral family business was of readymade garments whereas the fact of the matter is that father of the appellant is a retired railway servant and being suffering from paralysis is bed ridden for last five years. In support of his argument, learned counsel sought to produce certain medical certificates etc. We are afraid that we cannot directly entertain such documents in the appeal. However, considering that the learned Family Court has, in its order, observed this to be an admitted position of fact which is being disputed before us by the appellant, we deem it appropriate to grant liberty to the appellant to make a fresh application before the Family Court seeking review/modification of order dated 06.01.2018 by producing all the aforesaid documents and raising all the arguments, which he wishes to make. The Family Court upon filing of such an application, decide the same by passing a fresh order in accordance with law.
(Downloaded on 03/07/2019 at 10:36:54 PM)
(3 of 3) [CMA-2983/2018] With the aforesaid liberty to the appellant, the appeal stands disposed of.
Stay Application No. 2406/2018 also stands disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J Manoj/50/ (Downloaded on 03/07/2019 at 10:36:54 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)