Pankaj Jain Vs Parul Jain

“(a) Set aside the Impugned Order dated 23.10.2024 of the Ld. Judge, Family Court, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in GP 54/2018, titled as “ Parul Jain v. Pankaj Jain ” to the extent that it dismissed the contention that the Ld. Family Court is barred from passing any order granting custody to a non guardian ; (b) Quash/Close the proceedings of G.P. No. 54 of 2018, titled as “ Parul Jain v. Pankaj Jain ” before Ld. Judge, Family Court, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, as the said proceedings being ultra vires;

¶15

(c) Pass any other Order(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

¶16

The petitioner, who appears in-person, submits that vide impugned order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, his application

¶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 09/02/2026 at 11:58:34

¶19

under Section 151 of the CPC for adjudication of his contention regarding Section 7 of the Guardianship and Wards Act was not considered.

¶20

A perusal of the said order, would reflect that while dealing with the petitioner’s aforesaid application, the learned Family Court passed the following order:-

¶21

“5. In regard to respondent's application at SI. No. b, this court has already passed the orders dated 21.11.2023 & 02.03.2024 regarding procedural formalities involved in the case and both these orders have attained finality upto the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeals filed by the respondent.”

¶22

It is a matter of record that the aforesaid order dated 02.03.2024 was challenged by the petitioner by way of CM(M) 2406/2024, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 09.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. It is the contention of the petitioner that vide the aforesaid judgment, the learned Single Judge had given him liberty to agitate his legal issues in the following manner:-

¶23

“64. As per the scheme of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the father and mother both are natural guardians though father is up in the order of preference. Here, the case is between two parents only and no third party is involved. According to father, learned Trial Court cannot grant custody without deciding the aspect of guardianship and without ordering that father was no longer fit to continue as a guardian. This Court would not make any comment in this regard as the case is at the stage of final arguments and it will be always open to learned Family Judge to consider the aforesaid aspect in accordance with law . There cannot be any qualm with respect to the importance of pleadings but as already noticed above, the transposition has been permitted and upheld also and, therefore, learned Trial Court would interpret the pleadings in the aforesaid backdrop of the transposition.”

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 09/02/2026 at 11:58:34

¶26

On the basis of the aforesaid observation, according to the petitioner, learned Trial Court had to decide the aforestated issue.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that guardianship petition no. 54/2018 has been finally disposed of vide order dated 26.09.2025. Although the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner before passing of the said final order, the fact remains that all his contentions has been dealt with and disposed of by the learned Family Court vide the aforesaid final order. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that all the contentions of the petitioner has already been dealt with by the learned Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.12.2023.

¶28

Be that as it may, if it is the case of the petitioner that the concerned Family Court did not consider his submissions in accordance with law, then he would be at liberty to challenge the said final order.

¶29

In view of the aforesaid, the present petition has become infructuous and is accordingly disposed of.

¶30

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶31

AMIT SHARMA, J

¶32

FEBRUARY 4, 2026/ nk/sg

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

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 09/02/2026 at 11:58:34

Pankaj Jain v. Parul Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Jain v. Parul Jain

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

Himanshu Verma Vs Chandni Verma

Punjab National Bank through Chief Manager Vs M/S Poona Auto Ancillaries Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Meenakshi Gupta Vs Pooja Arora and Anr.

Ashok Kumar Singh Vs Dhrub Prasad Singh

Sandeep Sirpal Vs Vanika

Dr Dheeraj Kapoor Vs Dr Chetna Manaktala

Smt Twinkle Vinayak Vs Sh Vishal Verma

Kuldeep Singh Vs Azadpur Agriculture Produce Market Committee & Ors.

Himanshu Verma Vs Chandni Verma

Satish Chand Vs Atul Gupta Alias Atul Aggarwal & Anr.

Indian Ex Bordermen Movement through Jatinder Paul Syal Vs Ajay Kumar Bhalla

Zulfiquar Ahmed Vs Mohd Azam Khan

M/S Jai Baba Nanak Cloth Trading Co. Vs M/S Aviva Trading Co. and Anothers

Naranjan Singh & Ors. Vs Yogendra Tripathi & Anr.