AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(a) Staff salary at home,"Rs.1,50,000/-
(b) Household expenditure,"Rs.1,20,000/-
(c) Childrens’ tuition/extra ClassesÂ
other curricular activities","Rs.50,000/-
(d) Childrens’ Misc Expenditure,"Rs.30,000/-
(e) Personal expenses of the First,"Rs.70,000/-Party
(f) Childrens’ RD/SIP/PPF,"(Saving Rs.2,05,000/-Deposits)
Grand Total,"Rs.6,25,000/-â€
Mr. Patwalia submits that the Family Court has given no reasons as to why this amount has been reduced. Mr. Patwalia further submits that during,
the pendency of this appeal two orders have been passed dated 23rd May, 2018 and 31st May, 2018 which outlined the concern of the appellant and",
further the consent given by the senior counsel who had appeared on 31st May, 2018 on behalf of the respondent and the order passed by the Court",
on the said date. Mr. Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel contends that not only the terms of the settlement have been flouted, the respondent has also",
flouted with impunity of the order dated 31st May, 2018 and for which he has already filed a petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which is",
listed separately today.,
Mr. Patwalia submits that the terms of the settlement read with the order dated 31st May, 2018 should be complied with by the respondent. Mr.",
Patwalia further submits that instead of receiving Rs.6.25 lacs per month, the appellant is only receiving Rs.35,000/- per month and Rs.80,000/- from",
the property at Ghaziabad has not been received since February, 2018.",
Mr. Patwalia also informs this Court that initially the appellant was residing in the house of one of her uncle but she has now taken an apartment on,
rent and the rent is being paid by her brother.,
Mr. Sahay, on instructions from the respondent who is present in Court, submits that he has not in any way obstructed the payment of Rs.1.35 of",
rent to the appellant and he would not do so in future as well. The respondent shall remain bound by the statement made in Court today.,
Mr. Sahay, learned counsel for the respondent submits that firstly, the present appeal would not be maintainable as the order of 20th March, 2018 is",
a consent order. Secondly, Mr. Sahay submits that the order is purely interim in nature which is evident upon reading the last line of the order as per",
which the matter was adjourned for 7th May, 2018 at 2.00 PM for disposal. Thirdly, Mr. Sahay submits that post-filing of the appeal, the matter has",
been adjourned by the Family Court at the request of the appellant and thus the appellant cannot seek relief before this Court as the Family court is,
seized of the matter.,
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also examined the terms of the settlement arrived at before the Delhi High Court,
Mediation and Conciliation Centre dated 2nd June, 2017. We have also carefully examined the order of 31st May, 2018. According to Mr. Patwalia,",
order dated 31st May, 2018 is based on the statement made by Mr. Salman Khurshid, Ld. Senior Counsel, who appeared on behalf of the respondent",
and in part the order contains directions passed by the Learned Court.,
It is the contention of Mr. Sahay per contra that the order of 31st May, 2018 cannot be looked into as the order was passed by the Single Judge in",
FAO No.260/2018 when in fact an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act was maintainable. Additionally, Mr. Sahay contends that the",
Ld. Single Judge and the Mediator and the settlement did not take into account the earning of the respondent.,
We do not find any force in the submission made by Mr. Sahay for the reasons that neither the terms of the settlement have been recalled or set,
aside by any Court nor the order of 31st May, 2018 has been recalled nor the statement made on behalf of the respondent can be withdrawn. In our",
view, leaving the objections raised by Mr. Sahay open lest it causes prejudice to him in the contempt petition, which has been instituted and in which",
we have issued notice today, till the order of the 31st May, 2018 is set aside the same is to be complied with. As far as the impugned order is",
concerned reading of the same, no doubt, shows that it is a consent order and thus no relief can be granted to the appellant.",
At this stage, Mr. Patwalia submits that it may be a typographical error that a figure of Rs.2.5 lacs has been mentioned instead of Rs.6.25 lacs as",
per the settlement because a complete reading of the order would show that, on the one hand, it records that the records that the parties had",
principally agreed to remain bound by terms of the settlement wherein the respondent had agreed to pay Rs.6.25 lacs per month to the appellant,
whereas in the latter part, a figure of Rs.2.5 lacs has been mentioned.",
We are informed that the matter is now listed before the Family Court on 7th December, 2018. We grant leave to the appellant as prayed to raise",
this issue regarding reduction to Rs.2.5 lacs before the Family Court either by filing a new petition or otherwise. We also grant liberty to both the,
parties to rely on such documents as are available during the course of arguments before the Family Court.,
With these directions, the present appeal is disposed of.",