Disposed

Dr Sitanshi Sharma v. Dr Achintya Sharma

Delhi HC9 Sept 2024MAT.APP.(F.C.)/285/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a family court order in a matrimonial dispute; delay of 146 days condoned and amendment allowed by consent. The impugned order was set aside so both sides could be fully heard, and the family court was directed to re-hear the pending Order VII Rule 11 CPC application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dr Sitanshi Sharma Vs Dr Achintya Sharma — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 09.09.2024

¶4

- MAT.APP.(F.C.) 285/2024

¶5

DR SITANSHI SHARMA .....Appellant Through: Mr Amit Sibal & Mr Sunil Mittal, Sr Advocates with Mr Rajiv Bakshi, Mr Ram Pravesh Rai, Mr Pranav Pareek and Mr Shrey Shrivastava, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

DR ACHINTYA SHARMA .....Respondent Through: Ms Malvika Rajkoita with Mr Siddharth Arora, Ms Jasleen Kaur Raina and Mr Ramakant Sharma, Advs.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

¶10

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

¶11

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):

¶12

CM Appl.49841/2024

¶13

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶14

CM Appl.52319/2024

¶15

The above-captioned application seeks to amend the appeal. The application has been triggered due to order passed by the family court on a review application preferred by the appellant concerning the order dated 15.02.2024.

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 285/2024 Page 1 of 4

¶18

Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date: 18.0 9.2024 19:27:14

¶19

Issue notice.

¶20

3.1 Ms Malvika Rajkotia accepts notice on behalf of the nonapplicant/respondent.

¶21

Ms Rajkotia says that she does not wish to file a reply to the application, having regard to the fact that the amendment to the appeal has been sought at an early stage.

¶22

The prayer made in the application is allowed.

¶23

Accordingly, the amended appeal is taken on record.

¶24

CM Appl.49840/2024

¶25

This is an application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶26

7.1 Even according to the appellant, there is a delay of 146 days.

¶27

Issue notice.

¶28

8.1 Ms Rajkotia accepts notice on behalf of the non-applicant/respondent.

¶29

Ms Rajkotia says that in view of the order that the Court proposes to pass, she would have no objection if the Court were to condone the delay.

¶30

We are inclined to condone the delay, in the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case. It is ordered accordingly.

¶31

The application is disposed of.

¶32

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 285/2024 & CM Appl.49839/2024

¶33

This appeal seeks to assail the judgment and order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the family court.

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 285/2024 Page 2 of 4

¶36

Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date: 18.0 9.2024 19:27:14

¶37

It is the contention of Mr Amit Sibal, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant, that the appellant was not given adequate opportunity of being heard in the matter.

¶38

Ms Rajkotia, on the other hand, says that the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [in short, “CPC”] was filed by the appellant on 06.07.2021 and it has been hanging fire since then. Ms Rajkotia, thus, submits that the grievance articulated before the Court that the appellant has not been given enough opportunity to put forth her case does not hold water.

¶39

14.1 That said, Ms Rajkotia says that if this Court were to remand the matter and fix a date for re-hearing the application, she would have no objection to issuance of such direction.

¶40

Having regard to the fact that this matter revolves around a marital discord obtaining between the parties, we are of the opinion that both sides should have complete say concerning their respective contentions.

¶41

Accordingly, as agreed by the counsel for the parties, the impugned judgment and order is set aside.

¶42

Since pleadings are complete in the application preferred by the appellant under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, we request the concerned family court judge to re-hear the application on 07.10.2024.

¶43

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶44

Consequently, CM Appl.49839/2024 shall stand closed.

¶45

Signature Not Verified

¶46

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 285/2024 Page 3 of 4

¶47

Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date: 18.0 9.2024 19:27:14

¶48

The Registry is directed to dispatch a copy of the order passed today to the concerned family court.

¶49

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶50

AMIT BANSAL, J

¶51

SEPTEMBER 9, 2024 /pmc

¶52

Signature Not Verified

¶53

¶54

Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date: 18.0 9.2024 19:27:14

Dr Sitanshi Sharma v. Dr Achintya Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dr Sitanshi Sharma v. Dr Achintya Sharma

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

Ms. Mithila Murada Vs Sh. Akhilesh Bali

Ravinder Singh Vs Ms. Nitisha

Sh. Mohd. Rafi Chowdhary Vs Misaal Hairat

Harjeet Kaur Vs Jasneet Singh

Rita.Nimesh Vs Anil.Nimesh

Jasmine Chadha Vs Tejpal Singh

Anuradha Kashyap Vs Dr Sushil Kumar

Munish Jain Vs Shikha Jain

Ms. Mithila Murada Vs Sh. Akhilesh Bali

Central Board of Secondary Education Vs Aryan Ranjan and Anr.

Ravinder Singh Vs Ms. Nitisha

Mohinder Singh (Since Decesased) through Lrs & Ors. Vs Bimal Saxena (Deceased) through Assignee Virender Singh & Anr.

Gail Gas Limited Vs M/S Shyam Glass Works

Spicejet Limited Vs Sunbird France 02 S.A.S.