Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 110/2014 and C.M.No. 15373/2014
MR. VIJAY BHAYANA Appellant
Through: Mr.Anshu Mahajan with Mr.Ranjan Kr. Rai, Advocates with the appellant in person.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 110/2014 and C.M.No. 15373/2014
MR. VIJAY BHAYANA Appellant
Through: Mr.Anshu Mahajan with Mr.Ranjan Kr. Rai, Advocates with the appellant in person.
VERSUS
MS. NISHA BATRA Respondent
Through: Mr.Piyush Sanghi, Advocate with the respondent in person.
Through: Mr.Piyush Sanghi, Advocate with the respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
22.04.2015 The appellant and the respondent are present in Court. The respondent took a stand that she is willing to join back the company of her husband
(appellant herein), while on the other hand, the appellant showed his complete disinclination. Although, both the parties took dramatically
• opposite stands to each other, yet the Court allowed them to have an interaction with each other at least for two hours and to see whether they could reach at some amicable solution. After permitting the parties to meet, the matter has been taken up again at 3 p.m. but with no difference in their stand.
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/husband
2015:DHC:11706-DB challenging the order dated 09.04.2014 passed by the learned Principal
Judge, Family Courts (South-East), Saket, New Delhi whereby the Family
Court has disposed off the divorce petition filed by the petitioner/appellant under Section 13 B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, i.e., at the stage of second motion.
Indisputably, the respondent herein did not come forward to appear before the learned Family Court to give a statement in support of the petition filed under Section 13 B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act and the learned
Trial Court after placing reliance on the
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
22.04.2015 The appellant and the respondent are present in Court. The respondent took a stand that she is willing to join back the company of her husband
(appellant herein), while on the other hand, the appellant showed his complete disinclination. Although, both the parties took dramatically
• opposite stands to each other, yet the Court allowed them to have an interaction with each other at least for two hours and to see whether they could reach at some amicable solution. After permitting the parties to meet, the matter has been taken up again at 3 p.m. but with no difference in their stand.
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/husband
2015:DHC:11706-DB challenging the order dated 09.04.2014 passed by the learned Principal
Judge, Family Courts (South-East), Saket, New Delhi whereby the Family
Court has disposed off the divorce petition filed by the petitioner/appellant under Section 13 B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, i.e., at the stage of second motion.
Indisputably, the respondent herein did not come forward to appear before the learned Family Court to give a statement in support of the petition filed under Section 13 B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act and the learned
Trial Court after placing reliance on the
ORDER
of the Apex Court in the case of Smruti Pahariya v. Sanjay Pahariya (2009) 13 Supreme Court
Cases 338 dismissed the said petition filed by the parties.
Considering the fact that the respondent had not appeared before the
Principal Judge, Family Court and, therefore, the Family Court had no occasion to know her exact stand. However, in the present appeal the respondent has again taken a stand that she is not prepared to give divorce to her husband and in fact has shown her willingness to join back the company of her husband and in this background of the facts this appeal filed by the appellant will not sustain and the same is hereby dismissed. The order passed by the learned Family Judge, Family Courts is accordingly affirmed.
KAILAS IBHIR, J APRIL 22, 20 15/ 'dc' 2015:DHC:11706-DB
Cases 338 dismissed the said petition filed by the parties.
Considering the fact that the respondent had not appeared before the
Principal Judge, Family Court and, therefore, the Family Court had no occasion to know her exact stand. However, in the present appeal the respondent has again taken a stand that she is not prepared to give divorce to her husband and in fact has shown her willingness to join back the company of her husband and in this background of the facts this appeal filed by the appellant will not sustain and the same is hereby dismissed. The order passed by the learned Family Judge, Family Courts is accordingly affirmed.
KAILAS IBHIR, J APRIL 22, 20 15/ 'dc' 2015:DHC:11706-DB