Vineet Taneja v. Ritu Taneja

$~2 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.REV.P. 1130/2018 VINEET TANEJA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Shashank Khurana, Adv.

versus RITU TANEJA ..... Respondent Through None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 19.12.2018 On 14th December, 2018 learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, had stated that petitioner does not intend to challenge the impugned order on merits.

Petitioner had only prayed for granting reasonable time to pay the arrears of maintenance calculated @ `20,000/- per month. It was further stated that trial court had granted three months time to clear the maintenance. Petitioner had prayed for grant of six months time to clear the installments.

The matter was adjourned for today as petitioner had not annexed the order of the trial court granting petitioner three months time to pay arrears.

Order dated 4th September, 2018 passed in Execution Petition no.

166/18 has been placed on record. A perusal whereof shows that it is a consent order. The petitioner had agreed to pay `1,00,000/- every month on or before 10th day of each month to clear the arrears. Thus, I do not find any justification to reduce the time period agreed upon between the parties for clearing the arrears.

Petition is disposed of as not pressed.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

DECEMBER 19, 2018 r.bararia