Dismissed¶28

Sonu v. Oma Devi Alias Oma Wati

Delhi HC25 Sept 2025MAT.APP.(F.C.)/352/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay of 195 days; Delhi High Court matrimonial appeal (family court); guardianship petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 dismissed for failure to lead evidence; petitioner's evidence closed after repeated non-compliance despite final/last opportunities and imposition of cost; respondent's evidence closed; belated application to re-open evidence under order 18 rule 17 CPC at stage of final arguments; blame placed on previous counsel; no further indulgence granted by High Court; refusal to interfere with Family Court order; appeal dismissed; respondent through _Nemo_; digitally signed order.

What did the court decide?

Only the delay of 195 days in filing the Appeal was condoned (CM APPL. 61250/2025 disposed of); no relief on merits — the Appeal was dismissed and the pending application closed.

Sonu Vs Oma Devi Alias Oma Wati — Child Custody and Guardianship | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Only the delay of 195 days in filing the Appeal was condoned (CM APPL. 61250/2025 disposed of); no relief on merits — the Appeal was dismissed and the pending application closed.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 195 days in filing the present Appeal should be condoned (CM APPL. 61250/2025). +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

The delay of 195 days in filing the Appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application; CM APPL. 61250/2025 stands disposed of.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Though the Court would ordinarily be inclined to grant the indulgence of an additional opportunity to lead evidence, in view of the fact that the Family Court had already granted indulgence to the Appellant on various dates of hearing, the Court does not find it appropriate to interfere with the Impugned Order.

¶27

Key takeaways

With these observations, the present Appeal is dismissed and the pending application stands closed.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court, MAT.APP.(F.C.) 352/2025 (decided 25.09.2025, coram: Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ.). The appellant challenged a Family Court order dated 15.01.2025 dismissing his Guardianship Petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, filed in 2021, which was dismissed because he failed to lead any evidence despite numerous opportunities and never stepped into the witness box. Per the quoted Impugned Order, his evidence was closed on 22.02.2024 after failures on four listed dates (with final and last opportunities and cost of Rs.2000/- imposed), the respondent's evidence was closed on 09.08.2024, and only at the stage of final arguments on 25.09.2024 did he file a fresh vakalatnama and seek re-opening of his evidence under order 18 rule 17 of the CPC. Counsel sought one additional opportunity to lead evidence. Condoning the 195-day delay in filing the appeal, the Court nevertheless held that, since the Family Court had already granted indulgence on various hearing dates, it was not appropriate to interfere with the Impugned Order; the Appeal was dismissed and the pending application closed. Respondent was unrepresented (through _Nemo_).

¶1

$~51

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 352/2025, CM APPL. 61251/2025 SONU .....Appellant

¶4

Through: Mr. S G Goswami, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

OMA DEVI ALIAS OMA WATI .....Respondent Through: Nemo.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

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

¶9

O R D E R % 25.09.2025

¶10

CM APPL. 61250/2025 [Condonation of delay in filing the Appeal]

¶11

This is an application filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay of 195 days in filing the present Appeal.

¶12

For the reasons as stated in the application, the delay is condoned.

¶13

The application stands disposed of.

¶14

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 352/2025, CM APPL. 61251/2025 [For exemption]

¶15

Through the present Appeal, the Appellant assails the correctness of an order dated 15.01.2025 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟] passed by the Family Court, whereby the Guardianship Petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the Family Court.

¶16

A perusal of the record reflects that the Guardianship Petition was filed by the Appellant in the year 2021 and was dismissed by the

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 27/09/2025 at 11:48:20

¶19

Family Court on the ground that the Appellant failed to lead any evidence in the matter, despite numerous opportunities granted to him. The Appellant even failed to step into the witness box. Paragraphs No.7, 8 and 15 of the Impugned Order read as follows:

¶20

“ 7 . On 04.05.2023, 02.09.2023, 24.11.2023 and 22.02.2024, the petitioner failed to lead his evidence. Vide order dated 02.09.2023, final opportunity was granted to the petitioner for petitioner's evidence (PE). Vide order dated 24.11.2023, one last opportunity was granted to the petitioner to lead evidence subject to cost of Rupees Two Thousand only (Rs.2000/-) to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent. On 22.02.2024, no further opportunity was granted and petitioner's evidence (PE) was ordered to be closed. Matter was adjourned for respondent's evidence (RE). On 24.05.2024, the cost of Rupees Two Thousand only (Rs.2000/-) was paid in cash by the petitioner to the respondent number 1 in the Court. Respondent number 1/RW-1 was examined in chief and her cross examination was deferred as main counsel for the petitioner was not available today being busy in hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Vide order 09.08.2024, the cross examination of RW-1 was not recorded despite opportunity as the counsel for the petitioner was not available and the respondent's evidence (RE) was closed. The matter was ordered to be listed for final arguments on 25.09.2024.

¶21

8 . On 25.09.2024, a fresh power of attorney (POA/vakalatnama) was filed on behalf of the petitioner and an application for seeking the permission for re-open the petitioner's evidence under order 18 rule 17 of the CPC and setting aside the orders dated 22.02.2024 and 09.08.2024 was filed on behalf of the petitioner.

¶22

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

¶23

15 . It is clear on perusal of the record that the petitioner who was appearing in person or through his counsel was fully aware of the proceedings and that adjournments were taken by him for his evidence and even cost for the said purpose was imposed upon him. After the closure of the petitioner’s evidence (PE) on 22.02.2024, the respondent’s evidence (RE) was led and closed on 09.08.2024. It was at the stage of the final arguments on 25.09.2024, the petitioner brought a new counsel and moved the application under consideration by putting the blame on his previous counsel and by feigning ignorance of the proceedings.”

¶24

Learned counsel representing the Appellant submits that one additional opportunity may be granted to the Appellant to lead his evidence in the matter.

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 27/09/2025 at 11:48:20

¶27

This Court has heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the Appellant. Ordinarily, the Court would be inclined to grant such indulgence, however, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, where the Family Court has already granted indulgence to the Appellant on various dates of hearing, this Court does not find it appropriate to interfere with the Impugned Order.

¶28

With these observations, the present Appeal is dismissed. The pending application also stands closed.

¶29

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J

¶30

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. SEPTEMBER 25, 2025 jai/db

¶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 27/09/2025 at 11:48:20

Sonu v. Oma Devi Alias Oma Wati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu v. Oma Devi Alias Oma Wati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Upinder Kaur Malhotra Vs Capt Teghjeet Singh Malhotra and Anr.

Sarika Talwar Vs Siddharth Talwar

Aakash Chopra Vs Svikarni Singh Chopra

Surabhi Kaushik Vs Ramnik Chadha

Nitin Chopra Vs Geeta Vohra

Shweta Goswami Vs Amit Giri

Archana Chandra Vs Tarun Chandra

Karuna Nath Vs Dipender Nath

Upinder Kaur Malhotra Vs Capt Teghjeet Singh Malhotra and Anr.

Rahul Bhardwaj Vs Neeta Bhardwaj Ors.

Sarika Talwar Vs Siddharth Talwar

Prakaram Land and Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bank of Baroda and Ors.

Kamal Gupta Vs Nisha Gupta

Prakaram Land and Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bank of Baroda and Ors.