In a recent Delhi High Court judgment, the court addressed a maintenance claim contention between the parties involved in the case. The court scrutinized the respondent’s explanation for non-appearance during the initial notice of the petition, finding it frivolous and unacceptable. Despite being served with notice, the respondent raised issues regarding effective service and hindrances to appearing in court. The petitioner’s lack of vigilance in pursuing the case, especially concerning maintenance claims, was highlighted. Let’s delve into the details of this significant legal battle.
Facts
- The respondent admits to being served with the notice of the petition.
- The respondent claims that due to certain circumstances, maintenance was not passed during the initial notice of the petition.
- There is a contention that the respondent was prevented from appearing in court for sufficient cause or that notices were not effectively served upon the respondent.
Arguments
- The petitioner admits to not taking any action against his earlier counsel.
- The petitioner alleges that he was not able to follow or attend the proceedings due to misguidance from his earlier counsel.
- The petitioner does not deny being served with the notice issued by the Family Court.
- The petitioner’s current counsel attributes the petitioner’s actions to inadvertence.
Analysis
- The blame for the non-appearance of the petitioner cannot be solely attributed to the counsel.
- Litigants have a duty to be vigilant about court proceedings against them.
- The respondent was served with notice of the petition, as evidenced by the record.
- The explanation provided by the petitioner is found to be frivolous and unacceptable.
- Summons were served on the respondent in March 2021, as per the record.
- The petitioner should have been more vigilant, especially in a case involving maintenance claims.
Case Title: MOHD SHUEB Vs. FAYZA NISAR & ANR. (2024:DHC:4040)
Case Number: CRL.REV.P.-656/2024
