Priyanka Kumari Vs Ajay Kumar

In view of the fact that the lawyers are abstaining from work today, the learned counsel for the parties were specifically queried whether they are willing that the matter be taken up for hearing. Upon their consent, the present matter was taken up for hearing.

¶12

The present Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking to quash and set aside the Order dated 24.04.2026¹ , passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-01, South West, Dwarka, New Delhi² , in HMA No. 2954/2025, titled as “Ajay Kumar v. Priyanka Kumari.”

¶13

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the Impugned Order is manifestly erroneous since the learned

¶14

1 Impugned Order

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Digitally Signed CM(M) 1475/2026 By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 17.0 7.2026 10:48:55

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

Family Court has relied upon a Summon Report dated 24.11.2025 which, according to the Petitioner, is factually incorrect and does not pertain to the address of the Petitioner.

¶19

Elaborating the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Summon Report pertains to a property bearing No. C-136, S/F, Kh. No. 498, Block C, Rama Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059³ and it is only co-incidentally that the Court staff official, while visiting the above-mentioned address to ascertain the facts, happened to meet a person claiming to be the landlord of the adjacent property bearing No. C-136-A, Kh. No. 498, Block C, Rama Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059⁴ , who stated that the Petitioner and the Respondent were residing on the second floor of C-136-A as tenants.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court in the Impugned Order is incorrect since the memo of parties specified the address to be C-136 and not C-136-A.

¶21

Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in this regard, also places reliance upon a document, which is stated to contain the statement given by Mr. Anil Aggarwal, husband of Shashi Aggarwal, being the landlady of C-136-A.

¶22

Upon being repeatedly queried as to the evidentiary value of the aforesaid document, which is claimed to be the true statement of the husband of the landlady, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the aforesaid document has been obtained by the Petitioner to

¶23

2 learned Family Court

¶24

3 C-136

¶25

4 C-136-A

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed CM(M) 1475/2026 By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 17.0 7.2026 10:48:55

¶28

2 of 4

¶29

substantiate her case that she was not residing at C-136-A.

¶30

He further submits that the findings returned by the learned Family Court are based upon an incorrect appreciation of the factual position and, therefore, warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶31

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and, with his able assistance, perused the material placed on record. 10. A perusal of the record and the foregoing submissions indicates that the principal challenge sought to be raised before this Court pertains to the appreciation of the factual material relied upon by the learned Family Court while passing the Impugned Order.

¶32

This Court is of the considered view that, adjudication upon the aforesaid challenge, as raised in the present Petition, would require an examination of the evidentiary value of the Summons Report, the distinction between the two premises referred to by the Petitioner, as well as the authenticity and probative value of the document, which allegedly records the statement of the husband of the landlady of C- 136-A.

¶33

The contours of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are well settled. The jurisdiction is supervisory in nature and is intended to ensure that subordinate courts act within the bounds of their authority. It is not an appellate jurisdiction permitting this Court to undertake a fresh appreciation of disputed questions of fact or substitute its own view merely because another view may also be possible.

¶34

Accordingly, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed CM(M) 1475/2026 By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 17.0 7.2026 10:48:55

¶37

Page 3 of 4

¶38

for the Petitioner, seeking re-appreciation of all the afore-stated factual matters, do not, at this stage, inspire the confidence of this Court. All of these matters fall squarely within the domain of appreciation of facts by the learned Family Court and would not justify interference by this Court, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

¶39

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no jurisdictional error, patent perversity or manifest illegality in the Impugned Order warranting interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

¶40

Accordingly, the present Petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

¶41

Resultantly, the present Petition, along with pending Application(s), if any, stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶42

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. JULY 15, 2026/ v /jk/ma

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

Digitally Signed CM(M) 1475/2026 By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 17.0 7.2026 10:48:55

¶45

Page 4 of 4

Priyanka Kumari v. Ajay Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Kumari v. Ajay Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu Lal Patel and Anr. Vs Senator Wood Pvt. Ltd.

Kali Shankar Vs Arti

Nishi Dhir Vs Ashish Dhir

M/S. Rrb Energy Limited Vs Laplife Electronics Private Limited

Ayush Aggarwal Vs Naresh Gupta

Veena Gupta Alias Beena Gupta Vs Bhagwan Das (Deceased) through His Lrs

Shally Gupta & Anr. Vs Stuti Agarwal

Shri Sukhesh Chand Gupta Vs Dr. Sudesh Rattan & Ors.

Bank of Maharashtra Vs Life Insurance Corporation Ltd.

Naveen Kumar Gupta Vs Arun Kumar Burman & Ors.

Jay Prakash Vs Sh. Vijay Gaur & Ors.

Sharad Bhargava and Anr. Vs Meagan Ollari Khurana and Ors.

Ms Nidhi Mourya Vs Aakash Rathore

Jaspreet Singh Anand & Anr. Vs Gudev Singh Anand & Ors.