Allahabad High Court
RAM KUMARversusSANGEETA GUPTA
- Decided
Holding
The appeal is disposed of; the appellant cannot claim grievance from the interlocutory maintenance order after dismissal of the restitution petition, and the balance of the deposit must be released to the respondent upon production of a certified copy of the order.
Summary
The appellant Ram Kumar appealed against a Family Court order dated 4 April 2022 directing him to pay maintenance pendente lite of Rs 10,000 per month to his wife Sangeeta Gupta. While the maintenance order was in force, the appellant filed a restitution petition which he later failed to prosecute, leading to its dismissal on 28 April 2023. The respondent sought release of the balance of a Rs 5 lakh deposit made for mediation, of which only Rs 25,000 had been disbursed. The High Court held that, because the restitution petition was dismissed for default, the appellant could not claim to be aggrieved by the earlier interlocutory maintenance order and his remedy lay in prosecuting that petition. Consequently, the Court directed that the remaining deposit be released to the respondent upon production of a certified copy of the order and ordered the appeal to be disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is aggrieved by the interlocutory maintenance pendente lite order after the restitution petition was dismissed
- Whether the balance of the mediation deposit should be released to the respondent
- Whether the appeal against the maintenance order is maintainable
Subjects
- maintenance pendente lite
- restitution petition
- mediation
- deposit
- family court
- interlocutory order
- appeal disposal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL No. - 735 of 2023
Ram Kumar
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Sangeeta Gupta
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Jitendra Prasad, Kuldeep Kumar Dube
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anjani Kumar, Narendra Mishra
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.
1. Mr. Kuldeep Kumar Dube, learned advocate appears on behalf of
appellant, in the appeal fixed for 2.00 p.m and called. The fixation was
earlier on 25th February, 2026, when Mr. Gaurav Tiwari, learned advocate
instructed by Mr. Anjani Kumar had mentioned for early hearing.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 from order made that day are reproduced below :
"1. Mr. Gaurav Tiwari, learned advocate holding the brief
appears on behalf of respondent-wife and submits, there was
mention made in the morning for the appeal to be called out of
turn. He submits, his client had applied for maintenance pendente
lite and there was direction on order dated 4th April, 2022
passed by the Family Court for payment of Rs. 10,000/- per
month. In the appeal there was order made referring parties to
mediation and further requiring appellant to deposit Rs. 5 lacs.
Out of the deposit his client got only Rs. 25,000/- as expenses for
attending the mediation. He seeks direction for disbursement of
the balance since, he submits, appellant's main petition for
restitution has since been dismissed. Mr. Kuldeep Kumar Dubey,
learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-husband. He
submits, he does not have his brief today and there be
adjournment.
2. Mr. Tiwari presses for direction to release the balance deposit.
Mr. Dubey opposes. Adjournment granted is peremptory."
3. Mr. Gaurav Tiwari submits, appellant had filed for restitution. During
pendency his client had applied for maintenance pendente lite. There was
FAPL No. 735 of 2023
2
direction for payment of monthly maintenance. Appellant thereafter did not
prosecute his petition for restitution, by not appearing. The petition came to
be dismissed by the Family Court on order dated 28th April, 2023. There
was clear direction that interlocutory order made earlier for payment of
maintenance pendente lite would subsist till the date of dismissal. As such,
there be direction upon appellant to pay the accumulated arrears of
maintenance.
4. The appeal stands directed against order dated 4th April, 2022, directing
maintenance pendente lite at Rs.10,000/- p.m. The appeal was presented on
22nd May, 2023, after dismissal of the restitution petition. Considering
appellant's restitution petition, in which impugned interlocutory order stood
made, was dismissed for default, he cannot thereafter say he is aggrieved by
the interlocutory order earlier passed. His remedy lay in prosecuting the
petition for restitution, to persuade the Family Court that respondent should
stay with him and not ask for maintenance.
5. The parties had been referred to Mediation. It failed. However, there
stands deposited by appellant, some money out of which Rs.25,000/- was
disbursed to respondent. We direct disbursal of the balance to respondent on
producing certified copy of this order. She must file for execution to recover
the balance, if any.
6. The appeal is disposed of.
March 18, 2026
VS
(Arindam Sinha,J.)
(Satya Veer Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIDYA SAGAR BARATAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…