Allowed

Jyoti Mehra v. Kamal Kant

Delhi HC6 May 2025MAT.APP.(F.C.)/283/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi allowed an appeal against an order dismissing a divorce petition for want of evidence. Condoning a 58-day delay, the court set aside the dismissal and restored the petition, directing the appellant to pay costs and appear for leading evidence before the Family Court on 14th July, 2025.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dismissing the divorce petition was set aside, the appeal disposed of, and the appellant directed to appear on 14th July 2025 to lead evidence upon payment of Rs. 20,000/- costs.

Jyoti Mehra Vs Kamal Kant — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~27

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 06.05.2025

¶4

- MAT.APP.(F.C.) 283/2024 JYOTI MEHRA .....Appellant

¶5

Through: Mr. Siddharth Mittal, Mr. Abhijeet Varshney, Mr. Sumit K Sharma, Mr. Darshan Sejwal, Mrs. Shilpa G. Mittal, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

KAMAL KANT .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vikrant Chauhan, Adv. with Respondent in person.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

¶10

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)

¶11

CM APPL. 49206/2024 (D-58 days in filing)

¶12

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 58 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶13

The application stands disposed of.

¶14

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 283/2024

¶15

This appeal has been filed challenging the Order dated 16.05.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-01, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in HMA No. 390/2023 titled Jyoti Mehra v. Kamal Kant , dismissing the divorce petition filed by the appellant under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘HMA’) on the ground that the appellant has been unable to prove the allegations against the

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

Signed By:VIJAYA MAT.APP.(F.C.) 283/2024 LAKSHMI DOBHAL Signing Da te:0 9.05.2025 18:03:45

¶19

respondent.

¶20

The appellant had initially filed the divorce petition against the respondent on 01.07.2021 before the learned Family Court, Faridabad. Subsequently, on a petition filed by the respondent seeking transfer of the said divorce petition, the Supreme Court, vide an Order dated 16.01.2023, transferred the said divorce petition to the learned Family Court, Saket Courts.

¶21

The record reveals that thereafter, the respondent filed several applications before the learned Family Court, including an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, ‘CPC’) seeking amendment of the written statement, another under Order XI Rules 1 and 14 of the CPC, and yet another under Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC. While the applications under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and under Order XI Rules 1 and 14 of the CPC were dismissed by the learned Family Court vide Orders dated 22.12.2023 and 14.03.2024 respectively, the application under Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC was allowed vide Order dated 06.04.2024, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- by the respondent to the appellant herein. The said application was allowed primarily because the appellant did not file her reply to the said application despite opportunity being granted to her.

¶22

Thereafter, the divorce petition was listed for the appellant to lead her evidence. However, the appellant failed to do so on 27.04.2024, 09.05.2024, and also on 16.05.2024, when she sought an

¶23

Signature Not Verified Signed By:VIJAYA MAT.APP.(F.C.) 283/2024 LAKSHMI DOBHAL Signing Da te:0 9.05.2025 18:03:45

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

adjournment, which was refused by the learned Family Court; her opportunity to lead evidence was closed; and the divorce petition was dismissed for want of evidence.

¶26

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had been suspended from her services by an Order dated 22.03.2024, and had to be at Fatehabad to receive her charge-sheet on 16.05.2024. He submits that it was for these reasons that the appellant was unable to lead her evidence before the learned Family Court.

¶27

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Order Sheets of the learned Family Court reflect that the appellant had been taking repeated adjournments. The same has also been recorded by the learned Family Court in the Impugned Order dated 16.05.2024.

¶28

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 9. As noted hereinabove, the divorce petition had been transferred from the learned Family Court at Faridabad to the learned Family Court at Saket, New Delhi. It is not denied that at the relevant time, the appellant was posted at Palwal, but was later transferred to Fatehabad, and had been suspended from her services, whereafter, a charge-sheet was issued against her, which she was to collect from Fatehbad on 16.05.2024. She was, therefore, facing multiple issues at the same time, including prosecuting the present divorce petition. We also find that the respondent was also filing repeated applications in

¶29

Signature Not Verified Signed By:VIJAYA MAT.APP.(F.C.) 283/2024 LAKSHMI DOBHAL Signing Da te:0 9.05.2025 18:03:45

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

the divorce proceedings, reference of which we have given hereinabove.

¶32

Taking into account the totality of the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that one further opportunity should be granted to the appellant to lead her evidence in the divorce petition filed by her. However, this has to be subject to payment of costs to the respondent as the respondent has been burdened with further litigation.

¶33

Accordingly, subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 20,000/- by the appellant to the respondent, to be paid within a period of four weeks from today, the Impugned Order dated 16.05.2024 is set aside, and the divorce petition is restored to its original number.

¶34

The parties shall appear before the learned Family Court on 14^th July, 2025.

¶35

The appellant shall ensure that on the date fixed by the learned Family Court for producing her evidence, she duly appears and produces her evidence and does not seek any unwarranted adjournments before the learned Family Court.

¶36

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

¶37

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶38

RENU BHATNAGAR, J

¶39

MAY 06, 2025/ ab/sm/SJ

¶40

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶41

Signature Not Verified

¶42

Page 4 of 4

¶43

Signed By:VIJAYA MAT.APP.(F.C.) 283/2024 LAKSHMI DOBHAL Signing Da te:0 9.05.2025 18:03:45

Jyoti Mehra v. Kamal Kant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti Mehra v. Kamal Kant

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

Himanshu Pankaj Khinchi Vs Anshika

Sh. Anshumaan Bajpai Vs Smt. Hanika Jhulka

Chandna Singh Rakshit Vs Rajeev Rakshit

Sunny Bhiwal Vs Gunjan Sondhi

Sumitra Vs Inder Singh

Smt. Nikita @ Rinki Vs Shri. Ajay Khandelwal

Sh. Arvind Sagar Vs Smt. Kavita @ Seema

Lokesh Prabhakar Vs Archna Prabhakar

Himanshu Pankaj Khinchi Vs Anshika

Kedarnath Gupta (Deceased) Thr Lr Vs M/S Gunjan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Sh. Anshumaan Bajpai Vs Smt. Hanika Jhulka

Union of India & Ors. Vs Manish Sharma

Rajeev Narang Vs Sunita Narang

Union of India & Anr. Vs Joginder Singh & Anr.