SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

VIVEK CHAUDHARY, BRIJ RAJ SINGH
Angad Soni – Appellant
Versus
Arpita Yadav – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Maria Fatima, Gaurav Mehrotra, Nadeem Murtaza, Shhreiya Agarawal, Advocates
For the Respondent:Prateek Yadav, Advocate

ORDER

Heard.

2. Reasons indicated in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application are sufficient.

3. Application is accordingly allowed and the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal is treated to have been filed in time.

Order on Memo of Appeal

4. This appeal has been filed seeking setting aside the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ambedkar Nagar in Misc. Application No.24 of 2025, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act, 1955”) read with section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

5. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the appeal, are that marriage of the appellant with respondent was solemnized on 05.08.2024 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals and a written notarial marriage deed was executed on 12.08.2024 between the appellant and the respondent. On 03.09.2024, both the parties again solemnized their marriage second time as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. Since hostility developed between the appellant and respondent, therefore, appellant preferred an application through IGRS Portal on 10.09.2024 to the Su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top