Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 280/2012
% Date of Decision: 14.01.2013
SUMAN KAUSHIK ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. S.Rajappa, Advocate along with
petitioner in person.
versus
N P KAUSHIK ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. D.P.Kaushik, Advocate along
with respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
VEENA BIRBAL, J.
*
1. The present application was taken up with MAT. APP. No. 92/2009
and CM(M) No. 108/2009 which was filed by the applicant/wife. MAT.
APP. No. 92/2009 was filed by the applicant/wife wherein she had
challenged the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned ADJ
dissolving her marriage with the respondent on the ground of cruelty. In
CM(M) No. 108/2009, she had challenged the impugned order dated
06.07.2009 dismissing her application for enhancement of maintenance
pendente lite/litigation expenses.
CONT.CAS.(C) No. 280/2012 Page 1 of 3
2. The aforesaid appeal as well as CM(M) has been disposed of vide
separate judgment passed today.
3. In the present application, applicant has alleged that during the
pendency of the appeal challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated
06.07.2009 passed by the learned ADJ, the respondent has finalized the
matrimonial alliance with one Kusum d/o late Shri Goverdhan Dass Tewari
r/o 21, Shivalik Enclave, Urban Estate, Phase I, Jalandhar, Punjab. It is
alleged that he projected himself as divorcee and concealed his real age and
also concealed the factum of having the daughter of 24 years of age. It is
alleged that he also demanded ` 20 lakhs from the family of the girl.
4. It is also alleged that the respondent was assisted in doing the alleged
illegal activity by his brothers and sisters who have also been named in the
present application. It is alleged that they have also wilfully disobeyed the
order of this court and have interfered with the due process of law and
administration of justice as such contempt proceedings be initiated against
them.
5. It may be noted that the parties are living separately for the past 25
years and are litigating since then. It is not her case that during the pendency
of the appeal challenging the divorce decree he has re-married. Nothing has
been placed on record to substantiate that he has projected himself as a
divorcee as is alleged. Nothing is stated in the application as to how the
CONT.CAS.(C) No. 280/2012 Page 2 of 3
applicant has come to know about the allegations made in the application.
No material is also placed on record to substantiate the allegations except
few photographs.
6. Respondent is a member of Delhi Higher Judicial Service. He is
present in court and has denied having entered into alleged marriage during
the pendency of the present appeal. The respondent has stated that some
talks of marriage were initiated but same were subsequently dropped.
7. In view of the above discussion, no action is required on the present
application. The same stands dismissed.
VEENA BIRBAL, J
JANUARY 14, 2013
kks
CONT.CAS.(C) No. 280/2012 Page 3 of 3
+ CONT.CAS(C) 280/2012
% Date of Decision: 14.01.2013
SUMAN KAUSHIK ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. S.Rajappa, Advocate along with
petitioner in person.
versus
N P KAUSHIK ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. D.P.Kaushik, Advocate along
with respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
VEENA BIRBAL, J.
*
1. The present application was taken up with MAT. APP. No. 92/2009
and CM(M) No. 108/2009 which was filed by the applicant/wife. MAT.
APP. No. 92/2009 was filed by the applicant/wife wherein she had
challenged the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned ADJ
dissolving her marriage with the respondent on the ground of cruelty. In
CM(M) No. 108/2009, she had challenged the impugned order dated
06.07.2009 dismissing her application for enhancement of maintenance
pendente lite/litigation expenses.
CONT.CAS.(C) No. 280/2012 Page 1 of 3
2. The aforesaid appeal as well as CM(M) has been disposed of vide
separate judgment passed today.
3. In the present application, applicant has alleged that during the
pendency of the appeal challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated
06.07.2009 passed by the learned ADJ, the respondent has finalized the
matrimonial alliance with one Kusum d/o late Shri Goverdhan Dass Tewari
r/o 21, Shivalik Enclave, Urban Estate, Phase I, Jalandhar, Punjab. It is
alleged that he projected himself as divorcee and concealed his real age and
also concealed the factum of having the daughter of 24 years of age. It is
alleged that he also demanded ` 20 lakhs from the family of the girl.
4. It is also alleged that the respondent was assisted in doing the alleged
illegal activity by his brothers and sisters who have also been named in the
present application. It is alleged that they have also wilfully disobeyed the
order of this court and have interfered with the due process of law and
administration of justice as such contempt proceedings be initiated against
them.
5. It may be noted that the parties are living separately for the past 25
years and are litigating since then. It is not her case that during the pendency
of the appeal challenging the divorce decree he has re-married. Nothing has
been placed on record to substantiate that he has projected himself as a
divorcee as is alleged. Nothing is stated in the application as to how the
CONT.CAS.(C) No. 280/2012 Page 2 of 3
applicant has come to know about the allegations made in the application.
No material is also placed on record to substantiate the allegations except
few photographs.
6. Respondent is a member of Delhi Higher Judicial Service. He is
present in court and has denied having entered into alleged marriage during
the pendency of the present appeal. The respondent has stated that some
talks of marriage were initiated but same were subsequently dropped.
7. In view of the above discussion, no action is required on the present
application. The same stands dismissed.
VEENA BIRBAL, J
JANUARY 14, 2013
kks
CONT.CAS.(C) No. 280/2012 Page 3 of 3