Full Text
Translation output
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 55/2015& 56 /2015
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 55/2015, CM APPL. Nos. 8250/2015 (Delay) and
8251/2015 (Stay)
SH SURESH JINDAL ..... Appellant
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 55/2015, CM APPL. Nos. 8250/2015 (Delay) and
8251/2015 (Stay)
SH SURESH JINDAL ..... Appellant
VERSUS
SMT ARCHANA AGARWAL ..... Respondent $-28
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 56/2015, CM APPL. Nos. 5267/2015 (Delay) and
8268/2015 (Stay).
SURESH JINDAL ..... Appellant
8268/2015 (Stay).
SURESH JINDAL ..... Appellant
VERSUS
ASHUTOSH JINDAL ..... Respondent Appearance Dr. Anurag Kumar Agarwal and Mr. Umesh Mishra, Advocates for appellants.
(Item No. 27 & 28)
Ms. Archana Aggarwal and Mr. S. K. Aggarwal in person (Item No. 27).
(Item No. 27 & 28)
Ms. Archana Aggarwal and Mr. S. K. Aggarwal in person (Item No. 27).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL O R D E R
01.09.2015 While issuing notice in this matter, various directions were issued. A statement was also made by counsel for the appellant, on instructions, that he did not wish to challenge the quantification of the maintenance and confined his challenge to the findings of the learned Judge on other issues including the observations on the conduct of the parties. Today, learned counsel for the appellant submits that although a decree of divorce has been granted but an
2015:DHC:7203-DB
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL O R D E R
01.09.2015 While issuing notice in this matter, various directions were issued. A statement was also made by counsel for the appellant, on instructions, that he did not wish to challenge the quantification of the maintenance and confined his challenge to the findings of the learned Judge on other issues including the observations on the conduct of the parties. Today, learned counsel for the appellant submits that although a decree of divorce has been granted but an
2015:DHC:7203-DB
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 55/2015& 56 /2015 appeal filed by the respondent is still pending adjudication in this court. He further submits that the observations made while deciding issue nos.1 and 3 on the conduct of the appellant may affect the proceedings before the learned
Single Judge. It is further submitted that in the concluding part of the order, the trial court should have clarified that the observation made in the impugned order are primarily for the purpose of deciding application at hand alone.
The respondent who is present in person submits that the appellant has been delaying the decision in the matter which is pending and he has harassed his wife and children.
Heard.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, we have no hesitation in saying that the learned Single Judge who is seized of the matter would decide the appeal filed by the respondent unaffected by any observation made by the trial court while deciding issue nos. 1 and 3.
With these observations, both the petitions along with pending applications are disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J SEPTEMBER 01, 2015 gr/ssb
2015:DHC:7203-DB
Single Judge. It is further submitted that in the concluding part of the order, the trial court should have clarified that the observation made in the impugned order are primarily for the purpose of deciding application at hand alone.
The respondent who is present in person submits that the appellant has been delaying the decision in the matter which is pending and he has harassed his wife and children.
Heard.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, we have no hesitation in saying that the learned Single Judge who is seized of the matter would decide the appeal filed by the respondent unaffected by any observation made by the trial court while deciding issue nos. 1 and 3.
With these observations, both the petitions along with pending applications are disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J SEPTEMBER 01, 2015 gr/ssb
2015:DHC:7203-DB
JUDGMENT