Dismissed

Vandana Mehta v. Bharat Mehta

Delhi HC8 Aug 2016MAT.APP.(F.C.)/51/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court condensed the delay in filing an appeal against a decree obtained ex-parte in a Hindu Marriage Act petition. Instead of adjudicating on fraud allegations or permitting withdrawal, the court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn and directed the appellant to file a separate application in the family court pleading fraud.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay dismissed; appeal dismissed as withdrawn; direction to file fresh application alleging fraud in the Family Court.

Vandana Mehta Vs Bharat Mehta — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~13

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 51/2016

¶4

VANDANA MEHTA ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Jai Bansal, Advocate with Mr.Varun Aggarwal, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

BHARAT MEHTA ..... Respondent Represented by: None

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

O R D E R

% 08.08.2016

CM No.14014/2016

For the reasons stated in the application delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶12

Application is disposed of.

¶13

Mat. App. (F.C.) 51/2016

¶14

It is a strange case. The appellant was the petitioner in HMA 437/2011. She invoked Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The respondent remained ex-parte. Ex-parte evidence was led by the appellant. She succeeded. The appellant now files the appeal pleading fraud played upon her by her father-in-law. Her husband was missing. The appellant claims that her father-in-law obtained her signatures on some

¶15

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 51/2016

¶16

page 1 of 2

¶17

blank papers. The same were apparently used to file the petition, depose affidavits in support and also the affidavit by way of evidence led ex-parte. The appellant was also makes allegations against Mr.O.P.Sharma, Advocate. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appeal may be permitted to be withdrawn observing that if the appellant were to file an application before the learned Family Court pleading fraud the same shall be decided as per law. 3. In view of the decision reported as AIR 1996 SC 2592 Indian Bank Vs. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. if a party alleges fraud in a decree passed against it, and this would include even a decree in favour of the party, the learned Court of Original Jurisdiction has the power to look into the matter and pass appropriate orders.

¶18

Dismissing the appeal as withdrawn we simply observe that if the appellant were to file an application before the learned Family Court which has passed the impugned decree pleading fraud being played upon her and she not being aware that she is seeking annulment of the marriage, the learned Judge shall take cognizance of the same and decide the application as per law.

¶19

No costs. CM Nos.14012/2016 & 14013/2016

¶20

Dismissed as infructuous.

¶21

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

¶22

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

¶23

AUGUST 08, 2016 ‘skb’ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 51/2016

¶24

page 2 of 2

Vandana Mehta v. Bharat Mehta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vandana Mehta v. Bharat Mehta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siddharth Sharma Vs Shalu Sharma

Parveen Yadav Vs Atar Singh & Anr.

Chhaya Gupta Vs Manoj Gupta

Parul Nahar Vs Soumitra Kumar Nahar

Shruti Chopra Vs Kapil Chorpa & Anr.

Meenakshi Vs Nitin

Harpreet Singh Vs Dr Sonia Singh

Manish Jindal Vs Divya Jindal

Ajant Singh Tomar Vs Border Security Force & Anr.

Sardara Ram Vs Director General, Indo-Tibetan Border Police & Anr.

Dharmendra Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Surender Singh Dalal & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Varun Goel Vs Anshu Gupta (Goel)

Dipak Arora & Anr. Vs Vijay Bhushan Arora & Anr.