Disposed

Raminder Singh v. Hargun Kaur Sahni

Delhi HC23 Jul 2024MAT.APP.(F.C.)/230/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Family Court order condoning respondent's delay and setting aside ex-parte proceedings in a divorce petition. The Division Bench held matrimonial matters warrant an indulgent view on delay and declined to interfere, noting territorial jurisdiction issues remain for trial.

What the court decided

AI extract

Raminder Singh Vs Hargun Kaur Sahni — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~31

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 230/2024 & CM No.41187/2024

¶4

RAMINDER SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr Shahrukh Ahmad, Mr Mandeep Baisala and Mr Yashpal Singh, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

HARGUN KAUR SAHNI .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

¶7

O R D E R % 23.07.2024 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

¶8

This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.05.2024, passed by Ms Charu Aggarwal, learned Family Court Judge, Family Court-01, Tis Hazari Courts, West District, New Delhi.

¶9

Via the impugned order, the Family Court has allowed the application preferred by the respondent under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [in short, “CPC”] and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶10

The sum total of the brief impugned order is that in matrimonial matters, the parties should have an opportunity to have their say on merits. 4. It is the contention of Mr Shahrukh Ahmad, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant, that the assertion made by the respondent MAT.APP.(F.C.) 230/2024 page 1 of 3

¶11

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 02:31:50

¶12

before the Family Court that she was unaware of the pendency of the divorce petition is not correct.

¶13

4.1 For this purpose, Mr Ahmad seeks to rely on the screenshots of the WhatsApp conversation between the parties, along with an affidavit of service as also the e-mail dated 28.01.2023.

¶14

While broadly, the appellant may be right, we are in agreement with the learned Family Judge that matrimonial matters require the parties to have their say, even if there is some delay in approaching the Family Court. The Family Court can take an indulgent view if the parties do not approach the court in time, provided the delay is not abnormal, tactical and ill intended. These matters, in our opinion, would have to be distinguished from commercial cases.

¶15

5.1 Troubled marital life, at times custody of children, their health and educational issues, lack of wherewithal are aspects which do not come to the fore and yet impact prosecution of case with expected alacrity.

¶16

We may also add that it is one of the contentions of the appellant that since name of the parties are not shown in the e-court’s portal, the respondent could not have gained knowledge about the proceedings as contended by the respondent.

¶17

According to us, it is well known that each case is unique i.e., is based on its own set of facts. It is possible that the respondent became aware of the proceedings much later i.e., when the orders were uploaded.

¶18

That apart, as indicated above, we are not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Family Court.

¶19

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 230/2024

¶20

page 2 of 3

¶21

¶22

Before concluding, it may be relevant to indicate that in the application filed by the respondent under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC, a ground has been taken concerning the absence of territorial jurisdiction with regard to the divorce petition preferred by the appellant.

¶23

It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the marriage, in the first instance, was held on 24.10.2020 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Shahdara, Delhi-110093 and that the registration certification dated 26.10.2020 was issued by District Magistrate, Shahdara.

¶24

10.1 It appears that thereafter, another marriage ceremony (as per Sikh rights) was conducted on 04.04.2021.

¶25

10.2 According to the respondent, the parties have last resided in an apartment located in Dublin.

¶26

These are the aspects that the Family Court, in any event, would have to examine, even if the respondent is proceeded ex-parte.

¶27

In the fitness of things, this is a matter which, perhaps, requires a trial on merits.

¶28

The appeal is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. Consequently, the pending application shall stand closed.

¶29

Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

¶30

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶31

AMIT BANSAL, J

¶32

JULY 23, 2024 /aj

¶33

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶34

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 230/2024 page 3 of 3

¶35

Raminder Singh v. Hargun Kaur Sahni

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Raminder Singh v. Hargun Kaur Sahni

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sakshi Goyal Vs Uday Sonthalia

Abhishek Kumar Vs Jyoti Jaya

Ajayan Pillai Vs Adrija Devi

Renu Sharma & Anr. Vs Mool Chand Sharma

Iqbal Khan Yusufi Vs Sabeena Siddiqui

Shilpa Sood Vs Vivek Malhotra

Payal Arora Vs Saurabh Arora

Shilpa Sood Vs Vivek Malhotra

Mst Priyank Nagarwal & Ors. Vs Shri Rn Sharma & Anr.

Sakshi Goyal Vs Uday Sonthalia

Sovereign School Vs Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Arun Jhuraney Vs Shally Jhurney Alias Chandani

Iqbal Khan Yusufi Vs Sabeena Siddiqui

Mr. Rajendra Gupta Vs Mrs. Hem Manohar & Ors.