CM(M)/3218/2024 of VEER SINGH THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY Vs KINRI DHIR

Signature Not Verified

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 23[rd] August, 2024 Date of decision: 23[rd] August, 2024

% Date of decision: 23 August, 2024 + CM(M) 3218/2024 & CM APPL. 48474-48475/2024 VEER SINGH THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta with Mr. Nikhil Kohli, Ms. Akshaya Ganpath and Ms. Saumya Tiwari, Advocates. + CM(M) 3218/2024 & CM APPL. 48474-48475/2024 VEER SINGH THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta with Mr. Nikhil Kohli, Ms. Akshaya Ganpath and Ms. Saumya Tiwari, Advocates.

versus KINRI DHIR .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shivani Luthra Lohiya with Ms. Asmita Narula and Ms. Pranya Madan, Advocates. Through: Ms. Shivani Luthra Lohiya with Ms. Asmita Narula and Ms. Pranya Madan, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAINJ U M N T (oral)

1.Petitioner is defending Execution Petition i.e. Ex No. 1 of 2024.

2.Admittedly, sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- had been deposited by Judgment-Debtor before the Executing Court, in terms of the directions passed by the learned Execution Court. The petitioner though disputes that any amount was due towards any maintenance or arrears of maintenance and contends that he had to deposit said amount in compliance of the directions passed by the Execution Court.

3.Be that as it may, when the above said Execution Petition was taken up on 16.08.2024, Decree-Holder made request before the learned Executing Court. She submitted that for securing admission of their minor child in one renowned school, situated in Delhi, she required sum of Rs. 3,43,000/- towards admission fee.

4.Their such son is aged five years.

CM(M) 3218/2024 1

Signature Not Verified

5.Admittedly, in one earlier round of litigation, both the parties were before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and when Civil Appeal No. 4711/2023 was taken up by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 22.01.2024, certain directions were passed with respect to payment of rent and maintenance. The relevant paras read as under:-

“10. The appellant shall continue to pay sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards the rent and the maintenance @ Rs. 3,00,000/- for the respondent and her child on or prior to 5th of every month. Preferably, the said amount would be paid on the 1st of every month.

11. In addition to the aforesaid amount, the appellant shall also pay an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- so as to meet the expenses towards the security deposit and shifting etc. within period of three days from today.”

6.It is submitted that both the sides have already made respective applications before the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking certain clarification of the above said order and the application which has been filed by the Decree-Holder is likely to be taken up for hearing on 30[th] instant.

7.However, since the deadline to deposit admission fee was approaching fast, the above said request was entertained by the learned Execution Court, particularly, keeping note of the fact that the future of the minor child, who was on the verge of taking admission in the school, was at stake and if no concrete steps were taken, there was chance that he may eventually lose one academic year.

8.In view of the aforesaid peculiar background, out of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 6,50,000/-, sum of Rs. 3,43,000/- was directed to be released

CM(M) 3218/2024 2

Signature Not Verified

in favour of Decree-Holder in order to enable her to deposit the aforesaid amount with the said school to secure such admission.

9.Such order dated 16.08.2024 is under challenge by invoking Article 227 of Constitution of India.

10.When asked, learned counsel for petitioner/Judgment-Debtor, very fairly, admitted that in terms of the above said order dated 22.01.2024, there is an obligation on the part of the Judgment-Debtor to keep on paying sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- p.m. towards the rent and sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards maintenance of child and respondent. His grouse is, however, to the effect that since clarification was being sought, the Decree-Holder should have waited for outcome of her such application and, therefore, the learned Execution Court should not have directed release of any such amount.

11.It is important to note that the learned Trial Court, while ordering the release of the said amount, also observed that the Judgment-Debtor would be entitled to the adjustment of the said amount depending upon the outcome of said application seeking clarification, which is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

12.Irrespective of above, such amount can always be permitted to be adjusted from the future maintenance.

13.It looks little inexplicable and somewhat cruel on the part of petitioner that for his son, who seeks admission in school for the first time, instead of helping him in any manner, he is rather creating obstacles. Ideally, he should have risen above the occasion, while keeping aside the acrimony which he

CM(M) 3218/2024 3

Signature Not Verified

had with the respondent. The attitude demonstrated by him is not only agonizing but also unendurable.

14.Be that as it may, keeping in mind the nature of request for which the amount was directed to be released, this Court does not deem it fit and appropriate to interfere with the order, particularly, also keeping in mind the best interest and welfare of the child, which can neither be compromised nor jeopardized.

15.The petition is, resultantly, dismissed.

(MANOJ JAIN)

JUDGE

AUGUST 23, 2024/sw

CM(M) 3218/2024 4