Anupam Gupta vs Sumeet Gupta

NON REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6713 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP) No.17227 of 2007)

Anupam Gupta ... Appellant

Versus

Sumeet Gupta ...Respondent

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against an order dated 27th

of August, 2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi

at New Delhi in C.M.No.11168 of 2007 arising out

of CM (Main) No.1718 of 2004 whereby the High

Court had disposed of C.M.No.11168 of 2007 filed

by the appellant for producing additional evidence

with the directions to the appellant to pay

maintenance to the respondent at the rate of 2

Rs.35,000/- per month and clear the arrears

within two weeks.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties

and examined the impugned order. In our view,

the High Court was not justified, while dealing

with the application for acceptance of additional

evidence to direct the husband-appellant to pay

maintenance to the wife-respondent at the rate of

Rs.35,000/- per month and to clear the arrears

within two weeks from the date of passing of the

impugned order.

4. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is

set aside and the application for acceptance of

additional evidence is restored and the High Court

is requested to dispose of the same on merits in

accordance with law. In the event, the respondent

seeks to file any application for payment of

maintenance and also for arrears of maintenance, 3

it would be open for her to make such application

independent of the application for acceptance of

additional evidence. Both the applications if filed,

shall be decided in accordance with law.

5. We are informed that the main matter namely

C.M. No.1718 of 2004 is pending for a long time.

We request the High Court to dispose of the main

matter namely C.M.(Main) No.1718 of 2004 at an

early date preferably within three months from the

date of communication of this order to the High

Court. The impugned order is thus set aside and

the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated

above. There will be no order as to costs.

.........................J. [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi; .........................J. November 19, 2008. [V.S.Sirpurkar]