Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 957 (DEL)

Sujata Aggarwal v. Ravi Shankar Agarwal

2008-10-02

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

body2008
ORDER JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 24th March, 2007 whereby the learned ADJ dismissed an Execution application filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner had filed an execution of the following order: ?The petitioner in his reply has stated that the respondent has got a bank account where there is balance of around Rs.3 lakhs and she is getting income of around Rs.13000/-p.m. by way of dividend etc. However, respondent/wife has stated that said deposits are without her knowledge and instructions. She also stated that she is not aware of the details of the said deposits or the shares. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner will have no objection if the amount lying the bank account are utilized by the respondent towards her maintenance without prejudice to the rights of the parties under Section 24 of HMA. He also says that his client would help the respondent to locating the sources of dividend/interest warrants received in her bank account though his stand is that those share/deposits etc. are in possession of the respondent. He also states that the petitioner will have no objection if the respondent utilizes the said dividend which comes to her account or may be coming to her account, without prejudice to the rights of the parties. Respondent says that cheques towards dividend etc. are in fact coming at the address of the petitioner. If that is so, the petitioner is directed to send those dividends/ communications to the respondent and also to inform the companies about the current/present address of the respondent. Respondent at her own may also seek information about the source of investment/deposits in her bank account in case she may like to submit further in this regard she will be entitled to do so in the course of the proceedings.? 3. This order was passed by learned ADJ on 11th August, 2000, before the disposal of application under Section 24 of HMA. After passing of this order, the application under Section 24 of HMA was considered on merits and the maintenance was fixed taking into account the income and liability of the husband. 3. This order was passed by learned ADJ on 11th August, 2000, before the disposal of application under Section 24 of HMA. After passing of this order, the application under Section 24 of HMA was considered on merits and the maintenance was fixed taking into account the income and liability of the husband. The petitioners contention is that husband had taken a stand that wife was receiving an income of Rs.13,000/- per month by way of dividends and this stand of the husband had affected the mindset of the Trial Court while fixing maintenance and Trial Court had taken into account this income of the wife as alleged by the husband. Since this income was alleged by the husband by way of dividend, the husband was liable to pay this amount to the wife or was liable to handover the shares/deposits yielding this income. 4. It is normal for husband and wife to make allegations and counter allegations in respect of each others income. These allegations and counter allegations are considered by the Court while disposing of the application under Section 24 of HM Act. The allegations and counter allegations made by the husband and wife cannot be subject matter of the execution, even if they are mentioned in an order of the Court. 5. I find no infirmity in the order of the Trial Court. The petition is hereby dismissed.