Rajeev Saumitra v. Neetu Singh

1. The appellant/husband is aggrieved by an order dated 14.07.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, dismissing an application filed by him under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, in a pending petition filed by him under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed against the respondent/wife.

2. After addressing arguments at some length, Mr Narula, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants, states, on instructions, that the appellant does not wish to press the present appeal, particularly since the petition is listed before the Family Court on 06.12.2017, for recording the respondent’s evidence. He, however, states that the respondent has been trying to delay the proceedings before the Family Court and directions may be issued to ensure that the trial is expedited.

3. We are informed by learned counsel for the appellant that the Family MAT.APP.(F.C.) 177/2017 2017:DHC:6134-DB Court had directed the respondent to lead her evidence on 16.09.2017, but she had failed to do so.

4. Ms Rajeshwari H., learned counsel appears for the respondent, states that though she is not on caveat, she has entered appearance on receiving an advance copy of the paper book from the other side. She assures the Court that there shall be no delay on the part of the respondent in conclusion of the trial in the pending petition and directions issued by the Family Court to the respondent for submitting the relevant documents shall be complied with on the next date.

5. The learned Family Court is requested not to give any unnecessary adjournments to either side and conclude the trial as expeditiously as is possible.

6. The appeal is disposed of as not pressed along with the pending applications. HIMA KOHLI, J DEEPA SHARMA, J OCTOBER 13, 2017 bg