Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Angellina Arenja - Appellant
Versus
Nitij Arenja - Respondent
CM(M) 1210 of 2022
Decided On : 14-11-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to family court order. (Para 1) |
| 2. counsel's arguments on urgency. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court's direction for hearing. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. petition disposal order. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 48629/2022 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 1210/2022
1. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 05.11.2022, which reads as follows:
"05.11.2022
Present: Ms.Ajunee Singh, proxy counsel for the Petitioner. Submissions made.
Put up with the main case file on the next date of hearing i.e. 18.01.2023."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is aggrieved of the fact that despite an urgent relief having been sought by the petitioner in the application, learned Family Court has not issued the notice. Learned counsel submits that he would be satisfied if the learned Family Court considers the application on merits and passes an order in accordance with law.
3. Mr.Sanjay Abbot, learned counsel for the respondent has raised an objection as to the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that the affidavit annexed with the petition is of 05.11.2022 and the present petition has been signed on 07.11.2022.
4. I consider that this is a hyper-technical objection and cannot make the petition not maintainable.
5. Without going into the merits of the case and contentions being raised by the petitioner in the present petition, the petition is disposed of with the direction to the learned Family Court to take up the application dated 05.11.2022 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A read with Section 151 CPC for hearing on 28.11.2022 and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
6. Learned counsels for the parties are directed to appear before the learned family court on 28.11.2022.
7. With the above directions, the present petition stands disposed of.
The court emphasized avoiding hyper-technical objections in favor of substantive justice, directing the Family Court to hear the urgent application on merits.
The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of non-maintainability under the Family Courts Act, 1984, and the conversion of the appeal into a writ petition was rejected due to the absence of a required a....
The Court declined to rule on the merits of the case, leaving future proceedings open based on the Family Court's decisions.
The court condoned a 61-day delay in filing an application and allowed the petitioner to present evidence to facilitate an expeditious resolution of the case.
Ad-interim maintenance orders must adhere to procedural fairness, particularly in cases where a party does not appear. The court must set aside such orders to ensure justice is served in subsequent h....
The Court emphasized timely resolution of pending applications to avoid delay in family court proceedings.
Family Courts have discretion in managing their procedural schedules without interference, ensuring efficient case handling while allowing litigants the option to seek remedies.
The Family Court must consider maintenance applications on merits and take into account the appellant's statement of accounts at the time of disposal of the application.
A writ petition may be withdrawn by a petitioner with liberty to pursue other legal remedies available, especially when prior proceedings were withdrawn appropriately.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
