Ashwin Mittal v. Kanika Gupta Mittal

Delhi High Court · 31 Jul 2024 · 2024:DHC:5673
Manoj Jain
CM(M) 3065/2024
2024:DHC:5673
family petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The High Court directed the Trial Court to fix dates for recording respondent's evidence simultaneously with pending applications to avoid delay in a divorce proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Full Text
Translation output
CM(M) 3065/2024 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 31st July, 2024
CM(M) 3065/2024
MR ASHWIN MITTAL .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Ms. Fiza Chopra, Mr. Puneet Rathi and Mr. Prarikshit Bhati, Advocates along
WITH
petitioner in person
VERSUS
MS KANIKA GUPTA MITTAL .....Respondent
Through: Mr. R.K. Naroda, Mr. Udayan Mukerji, Ms. Jaya Pahwa, Ms. Bhavika Kohli and Mr. Chandan Mishra, Advocate along
WITH
respondent in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT
(oral)
CM APPL. 43110/2024 (exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM(M) 3065/2024 & CM APPL. 43109/2024

1. Petitioner has filed a petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. It seems that during pendency of the trial, several applications have been filed before the learned Trial Court by both the sides and such applications are pending adjudication.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is very limited and it is contended that though while taking up all such applications, learned Trial Court could have CM(M) 3065/2024 2 simultaneously fixed up the matter for recording of respondent’s evidence. However, as per the directions contained in the impugned order, respondent’s evidence has been directed to be recorded only after the pending applications are disposed of.

4. Learned counsel for respondent appears on advance notice and accepts notice.

5. Both the sides have been heard.

6. During course of consideration, learned counsel for respondent has also, very fairly, stated that he never had any intention to delay the matter and if learned Trial Court deems it fit and fixes up the matter for recording of respondent’s evidence, he would give his best co-operation in this regard.

7. In view of the above, present petition is disposed of with request to the learned Trial Court to fix up the matter for the purpose of recording of evidence simultaneously. It is apprised that a Local Commissioner has already been appointed and learned Trial Court would accordingly keep said aspect in mind and would direct for recording of evidence through such Local Commissioner.

8. Both the parties would appear before the learned Trial Court on the date fixed and learned Trial Court shall fix up date for RE.

9. Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

JUDGE JULY 31, 2024