PUSHPA GUGLANI Vs. AMIT GUGLANI

JUDGEMENT

(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, 2005 120 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 that any default in payment would be viewed in accordance with the judgment of this Court in Gaurav Sondhi .