Dismissed

Sapna Giya v. Deepak Giya

Delhi HC11 Sept 2025MAT.APP.(F.C.)/331/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed condonation of a 96-day delay in filing a matrimonial appeal. The court subsequently dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had abused the process of the court by failing to appear in seven out of ten opportunities after evidence proceedings had repeatedly stalled.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay allowed; Appeal and pending applications dismissed.

Sapna Giya Vs Deepak Giya — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~44

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- MAT.APP.(F.C.) 331/2025, CM APPL. 57482/2025 and CM APPL. 57484/2025

¶4

SAPNA GIYA .....Appellant

¶5

Through: Ms. Juhi Arora and Mr. Saral Arora, Advs. versus DEEPAK GIYA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sahay, Mr. Archit Rajput, Mr. Karandeep Singh, Ms. Shagun S. and Ms. Nupur Singh, Advs.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

¶8

O R D E R % 11.09.2025

¶9

CM APPL. 57485/2025 [For seeking condonation of delay in filing]

¶10

The present Application has been filed by the Appellant for seeking condonation of delay of 96 days in filing the present Appeal. 2. For the reasons as stated in the Application, the same is allowed.

¶11

The Application stands disposed of. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 331/2025

¶12

The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 assailing the Impugned Order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the learned Judge (West), Family Courts, Tis Hazari, New Delhi in HMA No. 89637/2016 captioned Deepak Giya vs. Sapna Giya .

¶13

Ordinarily, the Appellate Court grants one opportunity to the Appellant to conclude her evidence; however, this case

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 15/09/2025 at 12:23:57

¶16

proves/establishes that the process of the Court has been abused.

¶17

The evidence of the Appellant (Respondent before the Family Court) had been pending since 2020, and it took her two years to file her evidence by way of affidavit, which was eventually submitted in 2022. The Family Court had also closed her evidence vide Orders dated 24.11.2022 and 18.09.2024. 7. Subsequently, the Appellant filed an Appeal before this Court against the Order dated 18.09.2024. Vide Order dated 24.10.2024 of this Court, she was granted another opportunity to conclude her evidence and the Impugned order was set aside.

¶18

Thereafter, the Appellant was again given 9/10 opportunities, out of which she has only appeared 3/4 times. 9. Learned counsel representing the Appellant submits that on account of her medical condition, she is unable to hold urine for a long duration, which is creating a hindrance in appearing before the Court. 10. This Court has considered the medical report of the Appellant dated 24.03.2025, and it is evident that she has only led her evidencein-chief. The witnesses produced by the Appellant are to be crossexamined by the Respondent (Petitioner before the Family Court). 11. Keeping in view the afore-stated facts, this Court does not find it appropriate to grant any further indulgence. 12. Hence, the Appeal, along with pending applications, is dismissed.

¶19

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶20

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. SEPTEMBER 11, 2025 /sg/er

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 15/09/2025 at 12:23:57

Sapna Giya v. Deepak Giya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sapna Giya v. Deepak Giya

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

Smt Shikha Badhani Vs Shri Hemant Badhani

Sudha Jaina Vs Dr Er Rajainderr Jaina

Meenu Rana Vs Sh Saurav Pal

Nitij Arenja Vs Angellina Arenja

Richa Sharma Vs Nitin Sharma

Puja Pasricha Vs Aishwarya Pasricha

Rinki Rani Vs Chinta Ram

Neeraj Makhija Vs Ritu Makhija

Roopa Sharma & Ors. Vs Director Directorate of Education Govt of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Vs M/S. a K Shivhare Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Sh. Jay K. Bhardwaj, Advocate Vs Dev Narain Paswan & Ors.

Vivek Malhotra Vs Shilpa Sood

Mania Ghai Vs Nishant Chander

Shilpa Sood Vs Vivek Malhotra