* IN THE HIGH COURTOF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 30.04.2025 Pronounced on: 01.07.2025 + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 160/2025 ANITA SHARMA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Prashant Machanda, Ms.

Nancy Shah & Ms. Isha Baloni, Advs.

Versus NARESH KUMAR SHARMA ....Respondent Through: Nemo.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

J U D G M E N T

RENU BHATNAGAR, J.

CM APPL. 25536/2025

1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 26 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 25535/2025

3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 200 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

Signature Not Veri Mfie Ad T.APP.(F.C.) 160/2025 Page 1 of 17 Signed By:PALLAVI

4. The application stands disposed of.

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 160/2025

5. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘FC Act’), challenging the Order dated 19.04.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the, ‘Family Court’) in HMA No. 768/2018/2012, titled Naresh Kumar Sharma v. Smt. Anita Sharma, whereby a decree of divorce was passed in favour of the respondent herein, and the marriage of the parties was dissolved under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘HMA’).

6. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 07.05.1989 in accordance with the Hindu rites and ceremonies. Subsequently, the parties were blessed with a son and a daughter, born on 07.05.1992 and 22.04.1995, respectively.

7. It is stated that the respondent-husband abandoned the appellant-wife and even sold their matrimonial house in the month of June 2011, without informing the appellant-wife. He also failed to provide alternate accommodation or financial support to the appellant and their children, thereby abandoning them to fend for themselves. It is further alleged that the respondent neither shared the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial house nor paid any maintenance to the Signature Not Veri Mfie Ad T.APP.(F.C.) 160/2025 Page 2 of 17 Signed By:PALLAVI appellant or their children.

8. It is further stated that when the appellant attempted to assert her rights by challenging the eviction from the matrimonial house by filing a complaint under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘DV Act’), the respondent allegedly resorted to various illegal measures to forcibly evict the appellant and the children from the matrimonial house and in order to oust them from obtaining their rightful possession of the matrimonial house. This led to severe financial hardships for the appellant and her children.

9. It is also stated that the appellant raised both the children by incurring substantial debts, without any support from the respondent husband. The respondent is alleged to have initiated multiple litigations to render the appellant destitute and to dispossess her and the children from the house and the school.

10. Furthermore, it is stated that the respondent filed the aforementioned divorce petition by levelling false allegations of adultery against the appellant involving one person, namely, Mr. A.K. Tangri. Additionally, the respondent alleged physical and mental cruelty on the part of the appellant, contending that she had filed numerous frivolous complaints and litigations against the respondent before various local authorities and to the higher officials at Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘BPCL’), that is, the employer of the respondent.

11. Based on the submissions made and the evidence adduced Signature Not Veri Mfie Ad T.APP.(F.C.) 160/2025 Page 3 of 17 Signed By:PALLAVI before the learned Family Court, the said divorce petition w