Dismissed¶¶20

Anu Saxena v. Vikas Saxena

Delhi HC12 Nov 2025CM(M)/2159/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anu Saxena v Vikas Saxena; CM(M) 2159/2025; CM APPL. 70573/2025-Stay; High Court of Delhi; Saurabh Banerjee J; order dated 12.11.2025; HMA No.1547/2020; Family Court South-West Dwarka; Local Commissioner; recording of evidence; appointment without consent; unnecessary adjournments safeguards; costs/financial burden; evidence before Family Court vs Local Commissioner; M/s. H Dohil Constructions Co (P) Ltd v. Rohit Lal & Ors.; petition dismissed as withdrawn; appearance before Local Commissioner on 24.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief. Counsel, on instructions from the petitioner (present in person) and without adverting to the merits, withdrew the petition, stating she would comply with the order dated 24.07.2025 by appearing before the learned Local Commissioner on 24.11.2025; the petition and the pending application stand dismissed as withdrawn.

Anu Saxena Vs Vikas Saxena — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the Family Court's orders dated 24.07.2025 and 06.09.2025 in HMA No.1547/2020 — appointing a Local Commissioner to record the petitioner's evidence, said to have been passed without her consent and exposing her to costs — warranted interference by this Court. +1 more

¶¶13

Court's answer

This Court stated it was prima facie not convinced with any of the arguments addressed by the petitioner's counsel, since the impugned orders dated 24.07.2025 and 06.09.2025 speak for themselves.

¶¶18

Key takeaways

The Family Court, in the impugned orders, had only taken necessary safeguards to ensure the parties did not take unnecessary adjournments so as to defeat the whole purpose of recording evidence before the Local Commissioner, particularly given the matrimonial nature of the dispute.obiter¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Saurabh Banerjee, J.), CM(M) 2159/2025, decided 12.11.2025 — Anu Saxena v. Vikas Saxena. Petitioner challenged orders dated 24.07.2025 and 06.09.2025 of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, South-West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in HMA No.1547/2020, by which a Local Commissioner was appointed to record her witnesses' evidence; she objected that the appointment was made without her consent, that pending inter se petitions made attendance difficult, and that non-appearance would attract costs. Relying on M/s. H Dohil Constructions Co (P) Ltd v. Rohit Lal & Ors. (co-ordinate bench), counsel argued evidence should be recorded before the Family Court. The Court was prima facie unconvinced, observing the impugned orders spoke for themselves and that the Family Court had merely taken safeguards against unnecessary adjournments in a matrimonial dispute whose acrimony counsellcd against protraction. Counsel then withdrew the petition without adverting to the merits; petition and pending stay application dismissed as withdrawn, petitioner undertaking to appear before the Local Commissioner on 24.11.2025.

¶1

$~64

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M) 2159/2025, CM APPL. 70573/2025-Stay

¶4

ANU SAXENA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Yuganshu Sharma, Mr. Sarthak Vashisht, Advocates with petitioner in person

¶6

versus

¶7

VIKAS SAXENA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sahil Kakkar and Mr. Vinod Patidar, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 12.11.2025

¶12

By virtue of the present petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the orders dated 24.07.2025 and 06.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, South-West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in HMA No.1547/2020.

¶13

It is the case of the petitioner that the order dated 24.07.2025, by virtue of which a Local Commissioner was appointed for recording of evidence of the witnesses of the petitioner therein, was passed without her consent and since various petitions inter se the parties are pending, it is difficult for the petitioner to appear before the learned Local Commissioner.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that despite what has been specifically recorded by the learned Family Court in its order dated 24.07.2025, the petitioner will face financial burden as the costs are liable to be imposed if she does not appear before the learned Local

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 14/11/2025 at 11:30:11

¶17

Commissioner for recording of evidence.

¶18

Lastly, relying upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in “ M/s. H Dohil Constructions Co (P) Ltd v. Rohit Lal & Ors.” , learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appropriate procedure for recording of evidence would be before the learned Family court and not before the learned Local Commissioner. 5. Prima facie , this Court is not convinced with any of the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner since the impugned orders dated 24.07.2025 and 06.09.2025 speak for themselves. The learned Family Court in the impugned orders has only taken necessary safeguards to ensure that the parties do not take any unnecessary adjournment so as to defeat the whole purpose of recording the evidence before the learned Local Commissioner, particularly whence the dispute inter se the parties is a matrimonial one, which cannot be allowed to be protracted for a long period keeping in view its painful and acrimonious impact on the parties.

¶19

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner, without adverting to the merits involved, upon instructions from the petitioner who is appearing in person, seeks to withdraw the present petition and states that the petitioner in compliance of order dated 24.07.2025 will appear before the learned Local Commissioner on 24.11.2025.

¶20

As such, the present petition alongwith the pending application, stands dismissed as withdrawn.

¶21

SAURABH BANERJEE, J

¶22

NOVEMBER 12, 2025/So

¶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 14/11/2025 at 11:30:11

Anu Saxena v. Vikas Saxena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anu Saxena v. Vikas Saxena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhir Kumar Sharma Vs Mother Dairy Fruit Vegetable Mazdoor Sangh & Anr.

Charu Ahuja Vs Pooja Sharma

Usha Chettappurathu Gopinath Vs Poonam

Roopmala Tiwari Vs Prabha Rustogi

Ashish Kapoor Vs Sangeeta Mehta

Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board Vs Mahanagar Delhi Bhawan Evam Anya Sanniraman Mazdoor Sangh

Nazra Khatoon Vs Mohd. Zafar & Ors.

Poonam Madan Vs Siddhartha Sankar Sarmah

Ram Chander Vs Ram Prakash

Meera Kundra and Others Vs Dr Ankit Kalra and Others

Hemant Gupta Vs Ishwar Chand

Sh. Kailash Chand Vs Suresh Kumar Tanwar

Sakender Singh & Anr. Vs Kamla Rani Jain (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs

Priyanka, Vs Sh. Kaushal Kumar Sharma