Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

DEEPAK JAIN versus CHARU JAIN

Decided
14 March 2007
Judges listed
AR. LAKSHMANAN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2007] 3 S.C.R. 1039 · 2007 INSC 289
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 1040

2

Heard Mr.Prabhakaran assisted by Mr.S.Rajappa, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.M.N.Krishnamani, learned senior counsel for the respondent.

p. 1040

3

The above appeal is directed against the order dt. I 0.01.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in CM(M) No, 1720 of 2004. The said Civil "' Miscellaneous Appeal was filed before the Delhi High Court against the order of Addi.District Judge, Delhi in H.M.A.Case No. 149 of 2003 whereby the said court had disposed of the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and fixed an interim maintenance at the rate of 12,000/- per month from the date offiling of the application together with litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-. Aggrieved against the said order, CM(M) No.1720/2004 has been filed before the Delhi High Court. The High Court on considering all the averments made in the pleadings and also taking into consideration all the other annexures etc. came to the conclusion that the trial court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that Rs.12,000/- should be paid by way of interim ~ maintenance.

p. 1040, margin B

4

We have also carefully perused the impugned order and annexures and heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides. In our opinion, the order under challenge suffers from no infirmity. We, therefore, have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-husband. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

p. 1040, margin C

5

During the pendency of this appeal, this Court as an 'interim measure on 17.02.2006, directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per "' month to the respondent from the date of the filing of the application and continue to pay till the disposal of this appeal. In view of the fact that the appeal is being dismissed, the said interim order is vacated and the appellant will now be liable to pay the entire amount pursuant to the order of ADJ, G Delhi.

p. 1040, margin E

6

It is stated that the said interim order passed by this Court has also not been complied with. We direct the appellant to pay the entire balance amount to the respondent, if any, within two weeks from today. ..

p. 1040, margin F

7

In view of the Order now passed, the Contempt Petition is also dismissed. A

pp. 1040–1041, margin H

8

We direct the trial court to dispose of H.M.A.Case No.149 of 2003 within three months from today. No costs. RP. Civil Appeal & Cont. Petition dismissed.

p. 1041