Full Text
Translation output
2^ HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 152/2014
KULDEEP LAL
Appellant
Through: Mr. Tushar Thareja and Mr.Pulkit Dandonda, Advocates
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 152/2014
KULDEEP LAL
Appellant
Through: Mr. Tushar Thareja and Mr.Pulkit Dandonda, Advocates
VERSUS
SUMAN RANI
Through: None.
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
14.01.2015 C.M. Appl. No. 20169/2014 (condonation of delay)
Respondent By this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151, CPC, the petitioner seeks condonation of delay of 65 days in filing the accompanying appeal. For the reason stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 65 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.
Application stands disposed of
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
14.01.2015 C.M. Appl. No. 20169/2014 (condonation of delay)
Respondent By this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151, CPC, the petitioner seeks condonation of delay of 65 days in filing the accompanying appeal. For the reason stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 65 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.
Application stands disposed of
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 152/2014
Challenge in the present appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family
Courts Act, 1984 is to the order daed 25.8.2014 pased by the Learned
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tis Hazari Court,Delhi in HMA
2015:DHC:11651-DB No.1722/2014, whereby the early hearing application of the appellant was dismissed bythelearned Presiding Judge.
On the last date of hearing, notice in the present appeal was directed against the respondent. As per office report the notice as directed by the court has been received back with the report that the respondent is not residing at the given address. The court, while directing notice ofthe present petition also directed the parties to remain present incourt so that the matter can be taken up in the Chamber.
Mr. Tushar Thakur, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the limited grievance ofthe appellant in the present appeal is that the appellant and the respondent had been staying separately since
29.4.2007 and the petitioner got re-married after ex-parte decree of divorce was passed by the Alwar Court in his favour and he is undergoing a lot of mental tension and agony because of the protracted trial before the trial court, where the court is ceased with the mutual consent petition filed by the parties. The learned counsel has also apprised the court that the next date fixed before the learned Trial Court is 19^^ January 2015. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the respondent has been appearing in the matter before the learned Family Court.
Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts ofthe present appeal, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present appeal pending before this court. Interest ofjustice would be best served by giving direction to the learned Presiding Judge to make every possible endeavour to decide the joint petition filed by the appellant and respondent considering the fact that the 18 months statutory period from the date of filing the divorce petition has already come to an end, and it is expected that the same is decided within a period of six months from the date of this order.
With aforesaid directions, the present appeal filed by the appellant is disposed of.
KAILA^ GAMBHIR, J i.MEHTA, J JANUARY 14, 2015 pkb
Challenge in the present appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family
Courts Act, 1984 is to the order daed 25.8.2014 pased by the Learned
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tis Hazari Court,Delhi in HMA
2015:DHC:11651-DB No.1722/2014, whereby the early hearing application of the appellant was dismissed bythelearned Presiding Judge.
On the last date of hearing, notice in the present appeal was directed against the respondent. As per office report the notice as directed by the court has been received back with the report that the respondent is not residing at the given address. The court, while directing notice ofthe present petition also directed the parties to remain present incourt so that the matter can be taken up in the Chamber.
Mr. Tushar Thakur, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the limited grievance ofthe appellant in the present appeal is that the appellant and the respondent had been staying separately since
29.4.2007 and the petitioner got re-married after ex-parte decree of divorce was passed by the Alwar Court in his favour and he is undergoing a lot of mental tension and agony because of the protracted trial before the trial court, where the court is ceased with the mutual consent petition filed by the parties. The learned counsel has also apprised the court that the next date fixed before the learned Trial Court is 19^^ January 2015. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the respondent has been appearing in the matter before the learned Family Court.
Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts ofthe present appeal, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present appeal pending before this court. Interest ofjustice would be best served by giving direction to the learned Presiding Judge to make every possible endeavour to decide the joint petition filed by the appellant and respondent considering the fact that the 18 months statutory period from the date of filing the divorce petition has already come to an end, and it is expected that the same is decided within a period of six months from the date of this order.
With aforesaid directions, the present appeal filed by the appellant is disposed of.
KAILA^ GAMBHIR, J i.MEHTA, J JANUARY 14, 2015 pkb
JUDGMENT