Allowed

Mr Pramod Kumar v. Mrs. Archana

Delhi HC16 Jan 2024MAT.APP.(F.C.)/385/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal seeks condonation of delay in filing. The High Court condensed the delay and issued directions to the Family Court to expedite the evidence recording and judgment on account of delays caused by the physical unavailability of the respondent's legal aid counsel.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 25 days delay; Family Court directed to conduct cross-examination and approve evidence recording within four weeks and pass judgment within eight weeks.

Mr Pramod Kumar Vs Mrs. Archana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of decision: 16.01.2024

¶4

- MAT.APP.(F.C.) 385/2023

¶5

MR PRAMOD KUMAR ..... Appellant

¶6

Through: Mohd. Azeem, Advocate.

¶7

versus

¶8

MRS. ARCHANA ..... Respondent

¶9

Through: None. CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

¶11

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)

¶12

CM APPL. 66741/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 25 days in filing the appeal]

¶13

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

¶14

1.1 According to the appellant, there is a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal.

¶15

Since we intend to dispose of the appeal, the delay is condoned.

¶16

The application is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶17

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 385/2023 and CM APPL. 66740/2023 [Application filed

¶18

on behalf of the appellant seeking interim relief]

¶19

This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.09.2023 passed by

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Page 1 of 4

¶22

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 385/2023

¶23

Digitally Signed By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date: 18.0 1.2024 19:03:50

¶24

the learned Family Court-01, Shahdara, Karkardoom Courts, Delhi. 5. Counsel for the appellant/husband says that the impugned order, if sustained, would add to the delay. This, in fact, is the substance of the appellant’s/husband’s grievance before us.

¶25

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Family Court, after considering the application moved on behalf of the respondent/wife, has recalled the orders dated 31.01.2023 and 02.06.2023.

¶26

A perusal of the record shows that on 31.01.2023, the Family Court had closed the evidence of the appellant/husband (PW-1), although a request for adjournment was made on behalf of the counsel for the respondent/wife.

¶27

A perusal of the order-sheet dated 31.01.2023 shows that though the respondent/wife was present in person, the request for accommodation tendered due to the unavailability of her counsel was declined. It is because of this that the PE was closed, as the respondent’s/wife’s counsel was not present to cross-examine the appellant/husband (PW-1).

¶28

The record discloses that thereafter, the matter was placed before the Family Court on 03.05.2023, when once again the respondent/wife was present in person. However, once again, a request for accommodation was made on behalf of the counsel for the respondent/wife, on the grounds that he was unwell.

¶29

The Family Court, on that date, granted an adjournment and directed that the matter would be listed on 02.06.2023 for the respondent’s/wife’s evidence.

¶30

On 02.06.2023, even though the respondent/wife and her counsel were present, it appears that the respondent/wife’s counsel conveyed to the Court that he was under the impression that he had to cross-examine the

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Page 2 of 4

¶33

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 385/2023

¶34

Digitally Signed By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date: 18.0 1.2024 19:03:50

¶35

appellant/husband (PW-1). This aspect is recorded in the order dated 02.06.2023. It is against this backdrop that the Family Court fixed the matter on 21.08.2023 for final arguments.

¶36

Evidently on 21.08.2023, final arguments were heard and the matter was directed to be listed for pronouncing the judgment on 11.09.2023. As noticed hereinabove, the impugned order was passed on 11.09.2023 when Family Court took up the application preferred on behalf of the respondent/wife for recalling orders dated 31.01.2023 and 02.06.2023.

¶37

Having regard to the fact that the respondent’s/wife’s counsel was unwell, the Family Court proceeded to recall the orders and placed the matter for cross-examination of the appellant/husband (PW-1) on 22.01.2024.

¶38

Counsel for the appellant/husband says that respondent/wife has proceeded in the manner as recorded hereinabove only to delay the proceedings. That said, it is not in dispute that the respondent/wife has been represented by a legal aid counsel.

¶39

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the counsel was not available on 31.01.2023 and 02.06.2023 because of his ill health. The handicap that the litigant ordinarily faces when represented by legal aid counsel is evident in this case. Although on both dates i.e., 31.01.2023 and 02.06.2023, the respondent was diligently present in-person, her counsel was not available.

¶40

Thus, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances obtaining in the case, we are inclined to dispose of the appeal, with the following directions:

¶41

(i) The Family Court will take up the matter on 22.01.2024 for cross-

¶42

Signature Not Verified

¶43

Page 3 of 4

¶44

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 385/2023

¶45

Digitally Signed By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date: 18.0 1.2024 19:03:50

¶46

examination of the appellant/husband (PW-1).

¶47

(ii) Since there is no other witness that the appellant/husband wishes to present in support of his petition, if time permits, the Family Court will examine the respondent’s/wife’s witness(es). However, if for any reason, the examination of the respondent’s/wife’s witness(es) does not take place on 22.01.2024, the Family Court will ensure that the recordal of evidence takes place within the next four (04) weeks.

¶48

(iii) Once the entire evidence is recorded, the Family Court will fix a date for final arguments, albeit in close proximity, though not later than four (04) weeks from the date when the evidence is recorded.

¶49

(iv) The Family Court will render a judgment in the matter within eight (08) weeks of arguments being heard in the matter.

¶50

Consequently, the pending application shall stand closed.

¶51

Registry will dispatch a copy of the order passed today to the concerned court and also to the concerned Legal Services Authority so that the counsel who represents the respondent/wife is made aware of the order passed today.

¶52

18.1 In any event, counsel for the appellant/husband will also ensure that the order passed today is served on the counsel for the respondent/wife.

¶53

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶54

AMIT BANSAL, J

¶55

JANUARY 16, 2024 / tr

¶56

Signature Not Verified

¶57

Page 4 of 4

¶58

Digitally Signed By:PREMMOHAN CHOUDHARY MAT.APP.(F.C.) 385/2023 Signing Date: 18.0 1.2024 19:03:50

Mr Pramod Kumar v. Mrs. Archana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Pramod Kumar v. Mrs. Archana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaurav Saini Vs Riti Saini

Mukund Kumar Jha Vs Rita Jha

Manju Vs Shivprasad

Rachna Singh Vs Sachin Kumar

Vermeet Singh Taneja Vs Jasmeet Kaur

Sh Ashu Rawat Vs Dr Meenal Pandey

Vishal Kapoor Vs Preeti Kapoor

Anurag Singh Vs Priyanaka Tanwar

Gaurav Saini Vs Riti Saini

Baibhavi Sharma Vs Union of India & Ors.

Hardev Kaur Jando & Anr. Vs M/S Upper Land Constructions Private Limited & Ors.

Sandeep Vs Siya

Deepak Khosla and Ors. Vs Jyoti Wazir and Ors.

M/S Popular Metal Works & Anr. Vs Sh. Kapil Gupta & Ors.