Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 1956
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S. SISTANI, SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JJ.
SANGEETA GERA - Appellant
Versus
SANJEEV GERA - Respondent
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 42 of 2018
Decided on : 16-08-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Aman Mehta, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Rishi Kapoor and Mr. Satish Rai, Advocates
The Family Court may receive evidence that assists in dealing with the dispute, as per Section 14 of the Family Courts Act.
Headnote:
Condonation of Delay - Family Court Act - Section 14, Section 20
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought early hearing and condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order of the Family Court. The respondent opposed the application, alleging lack of bona fides.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the grounds for condonation of delay were insufficient and examined the matter on merits. The court concluded that the closure report admitted by PW-2 was not false or fabricated, and upheld the order of the Family Court.
Issues: Early hearing, Condonation of delay, Admissibility of evidence
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Family Court may receive any report, statement, documents, or information that would assist in dealing with the dispute, as per Section 14 of the Family Courts Act. The court also emphasized the overriding effect of the Act as per Section 20.
Final Decision: The appeal and applications were dismissed, and the date for final hearing was cancelled. The stay application was also dismissed.
G.S. SISTANI, J.
CM.APPL32700/2018(early hearing), CM.APPL 6672/2018(delay) & MAT.APP.(F.C.) 42/2018
1. This is an application filed by the appellant seeking early hearing. The application was listed on 14.08.2018. Learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that since the appellate court has fixed the matter for final hearing on 10.09.2018, the matter be taken up on an earlier date. Accordingly, notice was issued to the respondent through counsel. We may note that the present appeal is directed against the order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the Family Court. Together with the appeal, an application being CM.APPL 6672/2018 has been filed seeking condonation of 54 days delay in filing the appeal.
2. With the consent of the parties, this application being CM.APPL 6672/2018 seeking condonation of delay is taken up for hearing at the first instance. The delay is sought to be condoned on the ground that the order dated 23.11.2017 was passed by the Family Court and thereafter the matter was being taken up and listed on day to day basis for carrying out cross-examination of PW-1 and thereafter, the appellant was constrained to change the counsel. The new counsel applied for certified copies on 08.12.2017, which was made available on 24.01.2018. It has also been averred that the delay in filing the present appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional, but due to above reasons.
3. Mr.Kapoor, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the application on the ground that sufficient cause has not been disclosed for the condonation of delay. Mr. Kapoor submits that the appellant was quick enough to assail the order on 06.12.2017 within a span of seven days, but could not assail the order subject-matter of the present appeal. Mr. Kapoor submits that the sole aim and objective of the appellant is to delay the outcome of the petition seeking divorce which is, in fact, listed for final hearing today before the Family Court. He submits that the application lacks bona fides and thus, is liable to be dismissed. Reliance is placed by Mr. Kapoor on the judgments in the case of Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Waleshan Bahadur v. Princess Manolya Jah, Dulkadir Sokak, Adali Cikmazi No.9, Arnavutkoy, Istanbul, Turkey & Another, reported at 2018 SCC Online Hyd 236 and Preeti Jain v. Kunal Jain and Another, reported at AIR 2016 Rajasthan 153.
4. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant explains that the subsequent order was challenged as by that time, he had been engaged in the matter and had access to the complete record of the case. He submits that since the Family Court had granted one week’s time for release of the amount, therefore he had to approach this Court expeditiously.
5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and carefully examined the application seeking condonation of delay.
6. The delay is sought to be condoned firstly, on the ground that the matter was being listed on day to day basis for carrying out cross-examination of PW-1. The second ground is change of counsel, who applied for certified copies on 08.12.2017. We find that none of the grounds would amount to sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The application is devoid of any particular as to when the new counsel was appointed and as to why the counsel appearing earlier did not choose to challenge the order in case the appellant was so aggrieved.
7. We have, however, also examined the matter on merits. The complaint of the appellant is that an unsigned document in the absence of the original being available has been exhibited by the Family Court. Attention of this Court is drawn to the cross-examination of PW-2 Renuka Singh, Inspector, UP Police, who had admitted that the closure report does not contain her signatures. Mr. Mehta submits that based on the admission that the documents does not contain her signatures, the same is a forged and fabricated document. He submits that the submission made by Mr. Kapoor during the hearing of
