Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 28.05.2025
LUBNA RAIS .....Appellant
Through: Ms.Preeti Singh, Mr.Sunklan Porwal, Ms.Anuradha Anand, Ms.Shefali Menezes, Ms.Sakshi
Trivedi Ms.Ayushi Kumari, Advs along
Through: Nemo.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM APPL. 33842/2025 (Exemption)
2. This application has been filed seeking condonation of 35 days delay in filing of the appeal. CM APPL. 33841/2025
3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay is condoned.
4. This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 19.03.2025, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, East District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, in GP No. 48/2024, only to the limited extent that it closed the right of the appellant to file the written statement and struck off the defence of the appellant.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that such drastic steps should not have been taken by the learned Family Court for only one time non-compliance with the order dated 20.12.2024. She assures this Court that the order with respect to the visitation of the children with the respondent shall be duly complied with.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that an advance copy of this appeal has been supplied to the respondent by way of an e-mail. The appellant, who has appeared virtually, confirms that the email address mentioned in the appeal is that of the respondent. In spite of such advance service, none is appearing for the respondent.
7. Keeping in view the nature of the proceedings that are pending before the learned Family Court and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Impugned Order, inasmuch as it strikes off the defence of the appellant, is set aside, and the appellant is allowed to file the written statement before the learned Family Court within a period of one week from today, subject to costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the respondent and complying with the direction issued by the learned Family Court with respect to the visitation of the respondent with the children.
8. We make it clear that in case any of the above two conditions is not complied with by the appellant, the present appeal shall be treated as dismissed and the defence of the appellant shall continue to be struck off in the abovementioned guardianship proceedings.
9. As this Order has been passed in the absence of the respondent, we leave it open to the respondent, in case he decides not to accept the costs, to file an application seeking revival of this appeal.
10. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J MAY 28, 2025/rv/ik Click here to check corrigendum, if any