Amitabh Bhasin v. Hemlata Bhasin

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. AUGUST 06, 2018 bs/pp

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 6th August, 2018 + CM(M) 883/2018 & CMs No.31126/2018 (for stay) & 31127/2018 (for condonation of 49 days delay in re-filing) AMITABH BHASIN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Aman Mudgal, Adv. Versus HEMLATA BHASIN ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns as many as three orders, in HMA No.206/10/08 (New No.61747/2016) of the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court (Central). 2. The first order under challenge is the order dated 12th October, 2010 allowing the application of the respondent/wife under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for enhancement of maintenance of two minor children of the parties from Rs.12,000/- per month to Rs.18,000/- per month. 3. The second order is the order dated 20th January, 2018 of dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner/husband for review of the order dated 12th October, 2010 supra. 4. The 3rd and the last order is the order dated 26th February, 2018 of adjournment of HMA No.206/10/08 (New No.61747/2016) supra filed by the petitioner/husband for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act for the reason of the petitioner/husband, inspite of opportunity, having not paid the arrears of maintenance. 5. I have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner/husband as to how the petition against the order dated 20th January, 2018 of dismissal of review application, is maintainable. I have, for detailed reasons given in Ramvati Vs. Sukhbir Singh Chauhan 2018 SCC Online Del 9632, held that even a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not lie against an order of dismissal of an application for review and the need to reiterate the same herein is not felt. 6. The counsel for the petitioner/husband, without having the reply to the aforesaid query, then contends that the challenge is also to the order dated 26th February, 2018. 7. The order dated 26th February, 2018 of adjournment sine die of the petition for dissolution of marriage, till payment of maintenance, is only consequential to the order dated 20th January, 2018 vide which, while dismissing the application for review, last opportunity was also given to the petitioner/husband to pay the arrears of maintenance. Unless the order dated 20th January, 2018 is modified, no error is found in the order adjourning the proceeding sine die till the payment of maintenance. No such error is pointed out also. 8. As far as the challenge to the order dated 12th October, 2010 is concerned, the petitioner/husband claims to have earlier preferred CM(M) No.562/2011 against the said order and which petition, after some arguments, was withdrawn with liberty to file review. Thereafter, the application dated 1st June, 2011 for review was filed and which seems to have remained pending for an unduly long period of seven years. The counsel for the petitioner/husband is unable to tell as to why the review remained pending for seven years. 9. I have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner/husband, whether not now that the proceedings, in which the order dated 12th October, 2010 was made, have been transferred to the Family Court, the order dated 12th October, 2010, though not of the Family Court, will be deemed to be of the Family Court. 10. The counsel for the petitioner/husband has no answer. 11. The Family Courts Act, 1984, though Act No.66 of 1984, came into force in Delhi on 19th November, 1986. The same, vide Section 3 thereof required the State Government to, after consultation with the High Court, and by Notification, establish, for every area in the State comprising of city or town whose population exceeds one million, a Family Court. The said Act vide Section 7 thereof provides for the jurisdiction hitherto exercisable by any District Court or any subordinate Civil Court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedi