* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on: 12^th September, 2023

+

MAT. APP (F.C.) 199/2019

PALLAVI MOHAN ALIAS PALLAVI MENON ……Appellant

Versus

RAGHU MENON

...... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant:

Mr. Vineet Jhanji & Mr. Imran Moulaey, Advocates.

For the Respondent: Ms. Suman Arora, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

CORAM:-

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1.

Appellant impugns judgment dated 11.04.2019 passed by the

Principal Judge, Family Court Saket whereby the Divorce Petition

filed by the Respondent under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the HMA) has been

allowed.

2.

A preliminary objection has been raised by the Respondent that

the appeal is barred by limitation. It is contended by learned counsel

for the Respondent that as the appeal has been filed under the Family

Digitally Signed

By:RASHIM KAPOOR

Signing Date:13.09.2023

10:45:28

Signature Not Verified

Courts Act, 1984, the same should have been filed within a period of

30 days as provided under section 19(3) of the said Act.

3.

Per contra, the contention of the Appellant is that the appeal has

been filed under Section 28 of HMA, wherein the period of limitation

prescribed is 90 days.

4.

The questions that arises for consideration is as to what is the

5.

In the present case arguments were heard only on the

preliminary objection and not on merits and as such the factual matrix

of the case is being referred only to give context to the submissions

made by the parties.

6.

Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 19.05.2002 in

accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies at New Delhi and two

daughters were born out of the wedlock.

7.

Differences and disputes arose between the parties, and

sometime in March 2015, Respondent/Husband took an independent

accommodation in Gurgaon and filed the subject petition on

10.07.2015, before the Principal Judge, Family Courts Saket, seeking

Digitally Signed

By:RASHIM KAPOOR

Signing Date:13.09.2023

10:45:28

Signature Not Verified

divorce on the ground of cruelty under section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA.

8.

The divorce petition was allowed by the Principal Judge,

Family Courts Saket, New Delhi on 11.04.2019 and a decree of

divorce has been passed. Present appeal arises out of the said order.

9.

Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the appeal has

been filed under Section 28 of the HMA and Section 28(4) of the

HMA, prescribes a limitation period of 90 days for filing an appeal

against a decree or an order made under the said Act.

10.

Learned Counsel further submits that initially the period

prescribed for filing an appeal even under section 28 of the HMA was

thirty days but said provision was amended by Act 50 of 2003 and the

period was enhanced to ninety days. He submits that the amendment

was carried out pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in

Savitri Pandey versus Prem Chandra Pandey (2002) 2 SCC 73.

11.

Learned Counsel further submits that the non-obstante clause in

Section 20 of the Family Courts Act would not apply to the present

case because the amendment in the HMA was carried out after the

Family Courts Act was enacted. He submits that the non obstante

clause used in Section 20 uses the expression “any other law for the

time being in force” which would imply any other law in force when

Digitally Signed

By:RASHIM KAPOOR

Signing Date:13.09.2023

10:45:28

Signature Not Verified

the Act was notified¹ and would not apply to any amendment brought

in force later.

12.

Learned Counsel relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court

in Bank of India versus Ketan Parekh and others (2008) 8 SCC 148 to

contend that the non obstante clause in the later Act would prevail.

13.

Per Contra learned counsel for the Respondent submits that

Section 20 of the Family Courts Act commences with a n