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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 46216

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MAMTA DAS – Appellant
Versus
PUNEET DAS – Respondent
MAT.APP.(F.C.)-160/2022



##PAGE1##

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on:18.12.2025

Judgment pronounced on:24.12.2025

+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 160/2022

MAMTA DAS .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Zishan A. Siddiqui and Ms.

Amisha Upadhyay, Advocates.

versus

PUNEET DAS .....Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN

SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

REVIEW PET. 624/2025 (Seeking review in judgment dt. 22.09.2025 filed by

Petitioner) CM APPL. 78637/2025 (Stay) & CM APPL. 78638/2025 (Delay of

2 days in Re-filing the review petition)

1. The present Review Petition instituted under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, 1950, read with Section 114 and Order XLVII

of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeks review of the final

Judgment dated 22.09.2025, Impugned Judgement passed by this Court in MAT.APP.

(F.C.) No. 160/2022, whereby this Court affirmed the Judgement and

Decree dated 31.05.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge,

Signature Not VeriMfieAdT.APP.(F.C.) 160/2022 Page 1 of 6

Digitally Signed

By:HARVINDER KAUR

BHATIA

Signing Date:24.12.2025

11:59:09

##PAGE2##

Family Court, Tis Hazari Courts (Central), Delhi, in IDA No.

13/2017, granting a decree of divorce in favour of the Respondent-

husband on the ground of desertion under Section 10(1)(ix) of the

Indian Divorce Act, 1869.

2. During the course of arguments in the Review Petition, learned

counsel appearing for the Appellant-wife contended that Paragraph

50(c) of the Impugned Judgment suffers from a material error

apparent on the face of the record. In order to examine the said

submission, we consider it appropriate to reproduce Paragraph 50(c)

of the Impugned Judgment, which reads as follows:

50. Upon a scrutiny of the pleadings, depositions, and documents

placed on record, the learned Family Court, arrived at the

following, though not exhaustive, material conclusions:

*****

(c) After 2013-2014, all forms of communication between the

parties came to an end. Importantly, the Wife moved to Doha in

November 2012 without even informing the Husband, while the

Husband relocated to Nigeria in December 2012. The parties

thereafter lived abroad in different countries and never reunited

under one roof.

*****

….”

3. It was contended that while the said paragraph records that the

Appellant-wife left for Doha without informing the husband, the

admitted factual position, as borne out from the record, is that the

Petitioner-wife had relocated to Doha in November 2012 after duly

informing the Respondent-husband. In support of this submission,

reliance is placed on the e-mail communications dated 28.09.2012,

03.10.2012, and 11.10.2012.

4. Having considered the submission advanced on behalf of the

Appellant-wife, we concur that the factual aspect highlighted by her,

Signature Not VeriMfieAdT.APP.(F.C.) 160/2022 Page 2 of 6

Digitally Signed

By:HARVINDER KAUR

BHATIA

Signing Date:24.12.2025

11:59:09

##PAGE3##

namely, that she had informed the Respondent-husband prior to

relocating to Doha, stands clarified from the e-mail communications

placed on record.

5. However, in our considered opinion, the factual correction

sought by the Appellant-wife, even if accepted in her favour, does not

materially alter, dilute, or undermine the overall appreciation of

evidence on record. Nor does it have any meaningful bearing on the

ultimate finding of desertion as recorded by the learned Family Court

or reaffirmed by this Court in its Judgment dated 22.09.2025. The

finding of desertion is not predicated upon any isolated or minute

factual detail, but rather rests upon an evaluation of the cumulative

conduct of the parties and the totality of circumstances duly

established on record. A correction confined to a marginal factual

aspect, therefore, cannot dislodge or unsettle the final conclusions

arrived at in the said Judgments.

6. While rendering the Judgment under review, all material

aspects, pleadings, evidence, and surrounding circumstances were

examined and considered in extensive detail. During the c

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 Back to top