Appellant sought not to press the matrimonial appeal after arguments, stating the existing arrangement could continue and she may approach the Family Court if problems arise. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn and pending applications closed.
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.
$~31
SONICA SINGHI .....Appellant Through: Mr Anunaya Mehta and Ms Satya Jha, Advocates
versus
TANUJ DHAWAN .....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
O R D E R % 08.07.2024
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 207/2024 & CM APPL. 37592-37593/2024
on behalf of appellant, on instructions from the appellant who is physically present in Court, says that for the moment, he does not wish to press the appeal.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
AMIT BANSAL, J
JULY 8, 2024/ PB
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
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 03/07/2025 at 02:30:10
Sonica Singhi
Tanuj Dhawan
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
