Dismissed¶25

Tanuj Dhawan v. Sonica Singhi

Delhi HC3 Feb 2025CM(M)/205/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Art. 227 writ petition CM(M) 205/2025, Delhi HC, decided 03.02.2025 by Judge Ravinder Dudeja; petitioner Tanuj Dhawan challenged Family Court (NW District, Rohini) order dt. 21.10.2024 refusing waiver of Rs 10,000/- cost (imposed 01.12.2023) for written statement filed beyond stipulated 90 days in HMA No. 2355/2021 (Sonica Singhi vs Tanuj Dhawan); counselling/conciliation referral deemed no excuse; defect-in-petition averment called vague; no illegality or perversity found; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Although the case had been sent for counselling/conciliation, directions to file the written statement were issued whenever settlement appeared to fail, and it was incumbent upon the petitioner to file the written statement within the stipulated period of 90 days at least from the date the conciliation proceedings ended.

Tanuj Dhawan Vs Sonica Singhi — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether, under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court should set aside the Family Court order dated 21.10.2024 dismissing the petitioner's application for waiver of the Rs 10,000/- cost imposed for filing the written statement beyond the stipulated period.

¶14

Court's answer

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's averment that he could not file the written statement owing to serious defects in the petition was found vague, especially as no such defect had been pointed out before the trial court.

¶21

Key takeaways

Since the written statement was admittedly not filed within the stipulated period of 90 days, the Family Court stood constrained to impose a cost of Rs 10,000/- vide its order dated 01.12.2023.ratio¶22
No illegality or perversity was found in the impugned Family Court order; the petition lacked merit and was dismissed.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Judge Ravinder Dudeja, 03.02.2025) dismissed an Article 227 petition (CM(M) 205/2025, Tanuj Dhawan in person) seeking to set aside the Principal Judge, Family Court (North-West District, Rohini) order dated 21.10.2024 dismissing waiver of the Rs 10,000/- cost imposed on 01.12.2023 for non-filing of the written statement in HMA No. 2355/2021 ('Sonica Singhi vs Tanuj Dhawan'). The Court held that referral for counselling/conciliation was no excuse: the written statement was due within the stipulated 90 days at least from the close of conciliation proceedings; the plea of serious defects in the matrimonial petition was vague and had never been raised before the trial court; no illegality or perversity was found in the impugned order.

¶1

$~37

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M) 205/2025

¶4

TANUJ DHAWAN .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Petitioner in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

SONICA SINGHI .....Respondent Through: None.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶9

O R D E R % 03.02.2025

¶10

CM APPL. 6299/2025 (Exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

Application stands disposed of.

¶13

CM(M) 205/2025 & CM APPL. 6300/2025 (Stay)

¶14

This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, North-West District Rohini, Delhi in HMA No. 2355/2021 tilted as ‘ Sonica Singhi vs Tanuj Dhawan ’.

¶15

The Petitioner submits that he could not file the written statement within the stipulated period due to serious defects in the petition and also because the parties were referred for counselling.

¶16

It is further submitted that the rejoinder has not been filed by the respondent as per the e-filing rules in as much as the copy of the rejoinder

¶17

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 10/02/2025 at 14:50:25

¶18

supplied to the petitioner does not bear the complete pagination and signatures of the respondent.

¶19

Perusal of the order dated 21.10.2024 reveals that the petitioner appeared for the first time in Court on 16.11.2022. He was directed by the Court to file the written statement. The matter was simultaneously referred to the Counsellor for exploring the possibility of settlement. On the next hearing i.e. 18.03.2023, it was reported by the parties that conciliation proceedings were still going on, whereupon the matter was adjourned to 14.07.2023 with directions to the respondent to file the written statement, if settlement fails.

¶20

On 14.07.2023, the parties reported to the Court that the matter could not be settled and the Court adjourned the matter to 01.12.2023 with direction to the petitioner to file the written statement. Written Statement was not filed even on 01.12.2023.

¶21

It is evident that even though the matter was sent for counselling the Court had repeatedly directed the respondent to file the written statement, in case the conciliation fails. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to file the written statement within the stipulated period of 90 days at least from the date when the conciliation proceedings were over. The averment of the serious defect in the petition is vague, more so, no such defect was pointed out before the trial court.

¶22

Admittedly, the written statement was not filed within the stipulated period of 90 days and therefore, the Family Court was constrained to impose of cost of Rs 10,000/- vide order dated 01.12.2023. Application of petitioner for waiver of cost was dismissed on 21.10.2024.

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 10/02/2025 at 14:50:25

¶25

The Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. There is no merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed.

¶26

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶27

FEBRUARY 3, 2025 Sk/nc

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 10/02/2025 at 14:50:25

Tanuj Dhawan v. Sonica Singhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanuj Dhawan v. Sonica Singhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bakshish Singh & Anr. Vs De Schermer

Bhairab Ghosh Vs Amit Kumart Kanaujia & Ors.

Jatin Dhawan & Anr. Vs G. S Promotres Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Sudipto Dutta Vs Ram Murti Paul

Khalil Ahmad Vs Jatin Sachdeva and Ors.

Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs M/S Globe Capital Market Limited

Goodearth Bricks Pvt. Ltd. Vs Movie Time Cinema Pvt. Ltd.

Praveen Gulati Vs Jyotsna Ashra and Anr.

Bakshish Singh & Anr. Vs De Schermer

Dr Sarven Kumar Singh Rawat & Anr. Vs Khemka Stuart Leisure Ltd. & Anr.

Delhi Tourism and Transport Development Corporation Ltd. Vs M/S Indraprastha Travels Ltd.

Pinki Sharma Vs Jasmeet Kaur & Ors.

Praveen Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs Sushil Kumar Jain & Anr.

Manohar Lal Bansiwal and Anr. Vs Gyan Chand Bansiwal