Pushpa Guglani vs Amit Guglani on 6 September, 2016

1. Admittedly till July 2016, the respondent has paid the maintenance to
the petitioner @ Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of the application.
2. However, the payments have been delayed and it is only in view of
the stringent orders passed by this Court that the respondent has tendered the
payment.
3. According to the petitioner, in view of the default in payments the
respondent is liable to pay penalty amounts in accordance with paragraph 4
of the judgement of this Court in Gaurav Sondhi Vs. Diya Sondhi, 120
(2005) DLT 426. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the
Family Court, while passing the order dated 18th September, 2009 out of
which the present contempt petition arises, had made the petitioner aware

CONT.CAS(C) 441/2014 Page 1 of 2
that any default in payment would be viewed in accordance with the
judgment of this Court in Gaurav Sondhi (supra).

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply

*