Appellant sought withdrawal of a matrimonial appeal. The respondent's counsel did not oppose, subject to the concern that withdrawal not dilute the Family Court's permanent alimony order. The court permitted withdrawal, holding the apprehension misplaced and clarifying it would not affect other connected appeals.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~16
MANOJ SINGH NEGI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr A.K. Mishra and Mr Vaibhav Kumar Singh, Advs.
versus
RUCHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms Nidhi Mohan Parashar and Mr Vikrant Kumar, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
O R D E R
% 23.04.2024
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
CM Appl.21680/2024 [ Application filed by the appellant for withdrawal of appeal ]
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 139/2023
½
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/05/2024 at 12:57:19
3.1 Today, on our board, the connected appeals i.e., MAT.APP.(F.C.) 58/2023 and MAT.APP.(F.C.) 142/2023 are also listed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
AMIT BANSAL, J
APRIL 23, 2024 /pmc
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 139/2023 2/2
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/05/2024 at 12:57:19
MANOJ SINGH NEGI
RUCHI
RAJIV SHAKDHER
AMIT BANSAL
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act 1984 against a decree or order of a Family Court.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
