Gujarat High Court
Neetaben Dinesh Patel vs Dinesh Dahyalal Patel on 6 December, 2016
Author: Sonia Gokani
Bench: Sonia Gokani
C/CA/8605/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 8605 of 2016
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7882 of 2014
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7449 of 2015
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5396 of 2014
==========================================================
NEETABEN DINESH PATEL....Applicant(s)
Versus
DINESH DAHYALAL PATEL....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BM MANGUKIYA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS BELA A PRAJAPATI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SHAILESH V BORISA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date : 06/12/2016
ORAL ORDER
1. These applications are preferred respectively by the wife and the husband, who have both challenged the order of interim maintenance passed by the Family Court in Hindu Marriage Petition No.862 of 2007 on 30.8.2013. The wife has moved Civil Application No.8605 of 2016 and the husband has moved Special Civil Application No.7449 of 2015 with Special Page 1 of 5 HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Tue Feb 21 01:20:47 IST 2017 C/CA/8605/2016 ORDER Civil Application No.5396 of 2016.
2. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
3. Parties would be addressed to as petitioner wife and respondent husband respectively.
4. The petitioner is aggrieved by nonpayment of arrears of interim alimony during the pendency of this petition and additionally to pay Rs.50,000/ towards education of their son. The respondent husband is aggrieved by the Execution Petition being No.42 of 2014 pending before the Family Court and has sought stay of further execution of the order passed below Exh.29 in Hindu Marriage Petition No.862 of 2007.
5. Both the sides have been heard at length. Mr. Shailesh Borisa, learned advocate appearing for the respondent has no objection to the payment of arrears. However, the grievance raised is of non proceedings with the crossexamination of the respondent husband by the lawyer engaged by petitioner wife before the Family Court. He has urged that the trial Court passed order thrice directing the wife to complete the cross examination. However, the matter is not proceeding. Page 2 of 5 HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Tue Feb 21 01:20:47 IST 2017 C/CA/8605/2016 ORDER The order of interim maintenance cannot be stretched any further. He has no objection, if the matter is referred to the High Court Mediation Centre for exploring the possibility of amicable settlement. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya appearing for the petitioner wife has urged that unless the entire amount of maintenance is directed to be paid, no proceeding further can be permitted. He has no objection, of course, to the matter being referred to the High Court Mediation Centre.
6. Having thus heard learned advocates for both the sides, this Court notices that the trial Court has passed an order of grant of Rs.50,000/ pendente lite in the petition for dissolution of Marriage under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is also further noticed that the respondent husband has paid substantial amount of maintenance pursuant to the Court's direction. However, the amount which is outstanding is from April, 2015 and the respondent has shown willingness to deposit the amount as may be stipulated by this Court. It can be also gathered from the material on the record and particularly from some of the orders passed by the learned Presiding officer of the Family Court that the matter is pending for crossexamination of the Page 3 of 5 HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Tue Feb 21 01:20:47 IST 2017 C/CA/8605/2016 ORDER respondent husband from the year 2009. The Family Court has, time and again, directed the petitioner to complete the crossexamination. While directing the respondent husband to deposit the said amount of Rs.7.5 lakhs within a fortnight from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, the petitioner is also directed to complete the crossexamination of respondent husband within four weeks after once the process of mediation is over.
7. Considering the long drawn litigation between the parties and serious marital discords, it is deemed appropriate to refer the matter to the High Court Mediation Centre for exploring the possibility of amicable settlement at the hands of a senior Mediator, which shall be attempted by calling the parties on their mobile numbers i.e. Mobile No.9925038075 of the petitioner and Mobile No.9824018702 of the respondent without issuing any formal written notice.
8. Parties shall cooperate with the process of mediation by remaining present on the stipulated date and learned Mediator shall submit the report to this Court on before 26.12.2016. Both the Civil Applications stand disposed of accordingly. Page 4 of 5 HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Tue Feb 21 01:20:47 IST 2017 C/CA/8605/2016 ORDER (MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) SUDHIR Page 5 of 5 HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Tue Feb 21 01:20:47 IST 2017