Allowed¶24

Sonali Singhal v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC21 Jan 2025CRL.M.C./343/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, single judge (Jasmeet Singh, J), CRL.M.C. 343/2025, order dated 21.01.2025. Maintenance order of 28.09.2024 (Rs. 7,500/-) upheld by Sessions Court on 27.11.2024 in Cr. Appeal No. 374/2024 set aside on consent of respondent No. 2; one opportunity granted to petitioner (wife) to cross-examine respondent No. 2 (husband) before the MM on/after 01.02.2025, capped at 2 hours, no adjournment permitted; exemption application disposed; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Setting aside of the impugned orders dated 28.09.2024 (upheld by the Sessions Court on 27.11.2024), granting the petitioner one opportunity to cross-examine respondent No. 2 before the concerned MM on 01.02.2025, limited to not more than 2 hours, with no adjournment to be sought by the petitioner. ¶24

Sonali Singhal Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned maintenance orders should be set aside so as to grant the petitioner one opportunity to cross-examine respondent No. 2 (the husband), the earlier failure to cross-examine being attributed to miscommunication and lack of due diligence by the previous counsel.

¶18

Court's answer

Taking note of the fair stand of counsel for respondent No. 2 (who raised no objection), the petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 28.09.2024, upheld by the learned Sessions Court on 27.11.2024, are set aside.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Exemption application (CRL.M.A.) allowed, subject to all just exceptions, and the application disposed of.

¶14

Key takeaways

Parties directed to appear before the concerned MM on 01.02.2025 and, on the next date if required, conclude cross-examination of respondent No. 2, which shall not be for more than 2 hours.ratio¶25
Clarified that no adjournment will be sought by the petitioner (a condition attaching to the granted opportunity).ratio¶26
The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Jasmeet Singh, J) — CRL.M.C. 343/2025, decided 21.01.2025. Petitioner Sonali Singhal sought setting aside of the MM's order dated 28.09.2024 granting her maintenance of Rs. 7,500/- (described as grossly insufficient for herself and two children), which had been upheld on 27.11.2024 by the learned Sessions Court dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 374/2024. Her stated object was one opportunity to cross-examine respondent No. 2 (the husband), the omission being attributed to miscommunication and lack of due diligence by previous counsel. Counsel for respondent No. 2 fairly raised no objection. The Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned orders, directing appearance before the concerned MM on 01.02.2025 with cross-examination of respondent No. 2 to be concluded on the next date within not more than 2 hours, clarifying that no adjournment would be sought by the petitioner. Petition disposed of in these terms.

¶1

$~52

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 343/2025, CRL.M.A. 1690/2025

¶4

SONALI SINGHAL

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Rohit Bhardwaj, Mr. Himanshu Kaushal, Mr. Shivnath Sawhney, Advs.

¶7

versus

¶8

STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP Mr. Inderbir Singh, Adv. for R-2

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

% 21.01.2025

¶13

CRL.M.A. 1691/2025

¶14

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶15

The application is disposed of.

¶16

CRL.M.C. 343/2025

¶17

This is a petition seeking to set aside the order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No. 374/2024 wherein the said appeal challenging the order of 28.09.2024 passed by the learned MM was dismissed.

¶18

It is stated by Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is only seeking one opportunity to cross-examine the husband. The same was not done only on account of the miscommunication as well as the lack of due diligence by the previous counsel.

¶19

The impugned orders have granted maintenance of Rs. 7,500/- to the

¶20

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 27/01/2025 at 11:58:36

¶21

petitioner which is grossly insufficient to meet the needs of the petitioner as well as two children.

¶22

Issue notice.

¶23

Mr. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 accepts notice and very fairly states that he has no objection if the impugned orders are set aside and one opportunity is granted to the petitioner to cross-examine respondent No. 2.

¶24

Taking note of the fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, the petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 28.09.2024 upheld by the learned Sessions Court on 27.11.2024 are set aside.

¶25

It is directed that the parties shall appear before the concerned MM on 01.02.2025 (next date before the learned MM) and on the next date, if required and will conclude cross-examination of respondent No. 2 which shall not be for more than 2 hours.

¶26

It is clarified that no adjournment will be sought by the petitioner.

¶27

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶28

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶29

JANUARY 21, 2025/DM

¶30

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

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 27/01/2025 at 11:58:36

Sonali Singhal v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonali Singhal v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pec Limited Vs Phulchand Exports P Ltd. & Ors.

Sandeep Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Ms Bharati Bhawan Publishers and Distributors Vs Ms Clement School Mart Network & Anr.

Manju Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Suresh Chand Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sneha & Anr. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.