Rajeev Saumitra Vs Neetu Singh

Delhi High Court 13 Oct 2017 MAT.APP.(F.C.) No. 177 Of 2017, Civil Miscellaneous No. 36759-36760 Of 2017 (2017) 10 DEL CK 0328
Bench: Division Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

MAT.APP.(F.C.) No. 177 Of 2017, Civil Miscellaneous No. 36759-36760 Of 2017

Hon'ble Bench

Hima Kohli, J; Deepa Sharma, J

Advocates

Y.P. Narula, Murari Tiwari, Rahul Kumar, Tara Nareula, Rajeshwari H., Sushobhan

Final Decision

Disposed Of

Acts Referred
  • Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 12 Rule 6
  • Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 11

Judgement Text

Translate:

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 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.

From The Blog
Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Read More
Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Read More