Dismissed¶137

Kapil Dahiya v. Harleen Kaur

Delhi HC11 May 2026CM(M)/324/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction; closure of respondent evidence (RE) in Hindu Marriage Act divorce proceedings; repeated opportunities and last chances with costs (INR 5,000/- and INR 10,000/-); medical-ground absence contradicted by appearances as counsel before the Supreme Court and High Court; Medanta appointments booked on hearing dates; Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. v. B. Gurappa Naidu (2026 SCC OnLine SC 745) relied upon; CM(M) 324/2026 dismissed; no interference with Family Court, Tis Hazari order dated 15.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the learned Family Court warrants no interference; the Family Court acted well within its jurisdiction and was justified in closing the petitioner's right to lead RE, particularly after granting repeated opportunities and sufficient indulgence.

Kapil Dahiya Vs Harleen Kaur — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶137

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 15.12.2025 of the learned Family Court closing the petitioner's right to lead respondent evidence (RE) in HMA/1822/2022 should be set aside/quashed and the petitioner's right to give evidence restored. +2 more

¶15

Court's answer

¶136

Ratio / Principle

The contention that the first effective opportunity to lead RE was granted only on 29.10.2025 is not made out, since vide order dated 29.07.2024 the petitioner was directed to furnish his affidavit evidence on completion of the respondent's evidence, which took place on 22.10.2024.

¶120

Key takeaways

The medical documents placed on record do not sufficiently explain the petitioner's repeated defaults in appearing before the learned Family Court; his appearance continued to be recorded in multiple orders of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court during the relevant period.ratio¶126
Although the Court would normally grant indulgence in matrimonial proceedings, the petitioner's conduct, as borne out from the record, demonstrates consistent attempts to delay the divorce proceedings at every stage despite repeated opportunities and sufficient indulgence.ratio¶126
The reopening of the petitioner's right of cross-examination (allowed vide order dated 29.07.2024 subject to cost of INR 5,000/-) substantiates that adequate opportunities had been granted by the learned Family Court to diligently pursue the Divorce proceedings.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Amit Sharma, J.) dismisses a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (CM(M) 324/2026) challenging the order dated 15.12.2025 of the learned Judge, Family Court-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in HMA No. 1822/2022 (Harleen Kaur vs. Kapil Dahiya), whereby the petitioner-husband's right to lead respondent evidence (RE) was closed on account of his non-appearance. Held: the Family Court acted well within its jurisdiction — issues framed on 21.11.2023 with direction to file witness lists; petitioner's cross-examination right closed on 31.05.2024, reopened on 29.07.2024 with 150 minutes subject to cost of INR 5,000/-, and concluded on 22.10.2024; last-and-final RE opportunity granted on 29.10.2025 subject to cost of INR 10,000/-. The petitioner's medical documents, including Medanta Hospital appointments booked on the very hearing dates of 24.11.2025 and 15.12.2025, did not sufficiently explain his repeated defaults, especially since his appearance continued to be recorded as counsel before the Hon'ble Supreme Court (orders dated 14.02.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 7906/2010 and 26.02.2024 in SLP (C) 21647/2023) and this Court during the relevant period. Relying on Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. v. B. Gurappa Naidu, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 745, the Court confined supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to cases of unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, gross abuse of jurisdiction, or unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction, and found no ground for interference. Petition dismissed and disposed of; pending applications disposed; copy of the order sent to the learned Judge, Family Court-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts.

¶1

$~73

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M) 324/2026 & CM APPL. 8883/2026 (Stay)

¶4

KAPIL DAHIYA

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Rakesh Dahiya, Adv. along with petitioner in person through VC

¶7

versus

¶8

HARLEEN KAUR .....Respondent

¶9

Through: Mr. Amit Bajaj, Adv.

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

% 11.05.2026

¶13

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶14

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeks the following prayers: -

¶15

“a) Pass any order/direction thereby setting aside/quashing order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Family Court Judge, District Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in HMA/1822/2022 titled as “Harleen Kaur vs Kapil Dahiya” and thereby direct the Ld. Family Court judge restore the right of the Petitioner (then Respondent) to give evidence in his favour in the interest of justice;

¶16

b) Pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

¶17

The present petition assails the order dated 15.12.2025¹ passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts² in HMA

¶18

1 Impugned Order

¶19

2 Learned Family Court

¶20

CM (M) 324/2026

¶21

Page 1 of 25

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 13/05/2026 at 11:01:00

¶24

No. 1822/2022³ , titled as “ Harleen Kaur vs. Kapil Dahiya ”, whereby the petitioner’s right to lead Respondent Evidence⁴ was closed by the learned Family Court, on account of the petitioner’s non-appearance.

¶25

It is the case of the petitioner that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 28.12.2013, and a male child was born out of the wedlock on 24.11.2015. Divorce proceedings under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, were instituted by the present respondent against the petitioner, in the year 2022, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

¶26

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the latter has been suffering from chronic and recurring paralytic attacks and was medically unfit to participate in the Divorce proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Family Court, without considering the condition of the petitioner at that relevant point of time, had arbitrarily and abruptly closed the right of the petitioner to lead evidence, despite there being medical documents in support of the same.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to the order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, to submit that on the said date, petitioner had filed two applications before the learned Family Court. One of the applications was filed under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 of the CPC and the other was filed under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking visitation rights. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the said date, the learned Family Court had adjourned the matter for 15.02.2025, only for the purposes of arguments on the said applications, and not for RE. The order dated 16.12.2024 is reproduced as under: -

¶28

3 Divorce Proceedings/Divorce Petition

¶29

4 RE

¶30

CM (M) 324/2026

¶31

Page 2 of 25

¶32

This is a digitally signed order. 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 13/05/2026 at 11:01:00

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent herein had sought adjournments before the learned Family Court on two occasions, i.e. , 15.02.2025 and 03.05.2025. The orders passed by the learned Family Court on the said dates are reproduced as under: -

¶34

CM (M) 324/2026

¶35

Page 3 of 25

¶36

This is a digitally signed order.

¶37

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 13/05/2026 at 11:01:00

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner further draws attention of this Court to order dated 26.07.2025 passed by the learned Family Court and submits that on the said date, the matter was fixed for hearing of the aforesaid applications,

CM (M) 324/2026

Page 4 of 25

however, the learned Family Court had wrongly recorded that the matter was fixed for RE that day. The order dated 26.07.2025 is reproduced as under: -

¶43

Learned counsel of the petitioner further submits that on 22.09.2025, there was no occasion for conducting RE of the petitioner, as the petitioner had engaged a new counsel, who had appeared before the learned Family Court for the first time. The order dated 22.09.2025 is reproduced as under: -

CM (M) 324/2026

Page 5 of 25

In view thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the effective date for the RE to be conducted was 29.10.2025. It is further stated that on the said date, the petitioner was suffering from fever and he could not appear before the learned Family Court to tender his evidence, and in support of the same necessary medical documents were also placed on record before the learned Family Court; however, the learned Family Court, while ignoring the said fact, had imposed a cost of INR 10,000/- on the petitioner and had granted him a last and final opportunity for completion of RE. It is further

CM (M) 324/2026

Page 6 of 25

pointed out that on the said date, an application under Order XI Rule 14 CPC had also been preferred by the present petitioner for production of certain documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said order wrongly records that repeated opportunities were granted to the petitioner for conducting RE, and it is only on 29.10.2025, the first opportunity to conduct RE arose. The order dated 29.10.2025 is reproduced as under: -

CM (M) 324/2026

Page 7 of 25

Page 8 of 25

CM (M) 324/2026

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 24.11.2025, the learned Presiding Officer was on leave, and the matter was then adjourned for 15.12.2025, i.e. , the date of passing of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 15.12.2025, the Divorce proceedings were taken up for hearing at 10:00 AM upon a request being made by the opposite side, despite there being a categorical direction in the order dated 29.10.2025

CM (M) 324/2026

Page 9 of 25

that the matter will be taken up at 02:00 PM on 24.11.2025. It is further pointed out that the aforesaid application filed by the parties before the learned Family Court were taken up for hearing the very same day, post lunch time, i.e. , 02:30 PM. The impugned order dated 15.12.2025 is reproduced as under: -

CM (M) 324/2026

Page 10 of 25

CM (M) 324/2026

Page 11 of 25

CM (M) 324/2026

Page 12 of 25

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the latter had suffered from brain stroke and is taking medical therapies for recovering from various medical conditions. It is submitted that in view of the same, the petitioner had to resign from various legal panels, and he had only started appearing before various forums as an Advocate since January, 2023.

¶73

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Family Court ought to have decided the aforesaid applications filed on behalf of the parties, before closing the petitioner’s right to lead RE.

¶74

In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that an opportunity may be granted to the latter for completion of his RE, subject to payment of cost.

¶75

Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent draws attention of this Court to order dated 21.11.2023 passed by the learned Family Court and submits that the issues in the Divorce proceedings were framed on the said date of hearing and the learned Family Court had directed both the parties to file their respective list of witnesses within 15 days, and despite the said directions, the petitioner did not file his list of witnesses in due time. The order dated 21.11.2023 passed by the learned Family Court is reproduced as under: -

¶76

CM (M) 324/2026

¶77

Page 13 of 25

¶78

This is a digitally signed order.

¶79

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 13/05/2026 at 11:01:00

¶80

Learned counsel for the respondent further draws attention of this Court to the orders dated 04.03.2024 and 09.04.2024 passed by the learned Family Court to contend that the petitioner, on the pretext of exploring settlement, had sought adjournments on two occasions before the learned Family Court. It is further submitted that when the learned Family Court had asked the petitioner to appear before it, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stated

CM (M) 324/2026

Page 14 of 25

that the petitioner was not medically fit to appear before the learned FamilyCourt. The said orders are reproduced as under: -

CM (M) 324/2026

Page 15 of 25

Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the petitioner had failed to appear before the learned Family Court on various occasions, and did not participate in the Divorce proceedings on one pretext or another. It is further submitted that sufficient opportunities had already been granted to the petitioner by the learned Family Court; however, the petitioner only intended to delay the Divorce proceedings. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent draws attention of this Court to the order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, whereby on an earlier occasion, the right of the petitioner to cross examine the respondent had been closed. It is further submitted that even the learned Family Court had taken note of the conduct of the petitioner in the said order and had observed that the petitioner was intentionally trying to delay the Divorce proceedings. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court vide the said order had re-notified the matter on 29.07.2024 for the purposes of RE, and thus, the submission of the petitioner that the first effective date for the RE was 29.10.2025 is untenable. The order dated 31.05.2024 reads as under: -

CM (M) 324/2026

Page 16 of 25

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that after the aforesaid order dated 31.05.2024 was passed, the petitioner had moved an application before the learned Family Court under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking reopening of his right to cross examine the respondent. It is further submitted that the said application was allowed by the learned Family

¶93

CM (M) 324/2026

¶94

Page 17 of 25

¶95

This is a digitally signed order.

¶96

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 13/05/2026 at 11:01:00

¶97

Court vide order dated 29.07.2024 and the petitioner herein, was granted 150 more minutes to conclude the cross examination of the respondent, subject to cost of INR 5,000/-. The order dated 29.07.2024 is reproduced as under: -

CM (M) 324/2026

Page 18 of 25

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that on 15.10.2024, further cross examination of the respondent was conducted by the petitioner, and on 22.10.2024, the said cross examination was concluded and the matter was adjourned for RE, with a direction to the petitioner to supply an advance copy of his evidence by way of affidavit.

¶102

Learned counsel for the respondent further draws attention of this Court to the order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the learned Family Court to contend that when the matter was fixed for RE, the petitioner, with an intent to delay the proceedings, had filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 CPC along with another application under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking visitation rights. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that on the said date, the petitioner had filed his evidence by way of affidavit before the learned Family Court, and since the contents thereof travelled beyond the scope of the pleadings, the respondent had filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking discarding of the said evidence by way of affidavit filed on behalf of the present petitioner. It is further submitted that while framing issues in the Divorce proceedings vide order dated 21.11.2023, the learned Family Court had directed the petitioner to file the list of witnesses; however, the petitioner failed to do so, and the said conduct of the petitioner was also recorded in the order dated 16.12.2024. It is further submitted that the petitioner had also been directed to file evidence by way of affidavit of the remaining two witnesses, which he failed to file till date. 21. Learned counsel for the respondent further draws attention of this Court to the order dated 26.07.2025 passed by the learned Family Court to contend that there was a categorical direction of the learned Family Court for the petitioner to appear in person on the next date of hearing, i.e. , 22.09.2025;

CM (M) 324/2026

Page 19 of 25

however, the petitioner did not appear before the learned Family Court and had rather changed his counsel, who had further requested for an adjournment. 22. Learned counsel for the respondent further draws attention of this Court to the order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the learned Family Court to contend that even on the said date, the petitioner had failed to appear in the Divorce proceedings and the learned Family Court, while taking note of the same, had imposed a cost of INR 10,000/- on the petitioner, and had given the petitioner a last and final opportunity to lead his RE, and in case he failed to do so, his right would stand closed and his defence would be struck off.

¶107

At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent draws attention of this Court to the medical documents annexed by the petitioner along with the present petition, and in particular, to the following two communications received by the petitioner from Medanta Hospital, regarding his medical appointments. The said communications are reproduced as under: -

CM (M) 324/2026

Page 20 of 25

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the said communications pertain to the medical appointments booked by the petitioner for himself for 24.11.2025 at 11:30 AM and 15.12.2025 at 10:38 AM, i.e. , the very dates when the matter was listed before the learned Family Court. It is submitted that the same clearly shows that these appointments were taken by the petitioner on the exact dates when the Divorce proceedings were listed before the learned Family Court and had rely upon the same as a ground for non-appearance.

CM (M) 324/2026

Page 21 of 25

Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the petitioner had also filed a transfer petition before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Tis Hazari Courts, being Civil TP No. 1/2026 seeking transfer of the Divorce proceedings, which was dismissed vide order dated 17.03.2026. It is further submitted that the petitioner had also preferred a hebeas corpus petition being W.P. (CRL) 735/2026 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.03.2026 passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court. 25. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records. 26. Learned counsel for the respondent has handed up in Court today multiple orders passed by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein the appearance of the present petitioner has been recorded as a counsel, and the same are taken on record. Attention of this Court has specifically been drawn to the orders dated 14.02.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7906/2010 and 26.02.2024 passed in SLP (C) 21647/2023 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein the appearance of the present petitioner was recorded as a counsel. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent points out that despite the petitioner having appeared before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the aforesaid dates, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 09.04.2024, had recorded the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that he was medically unfit to appear in the divorce proceedings. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent had pointed out that the petitioner had not appeared before the learned Family Court till the filing of the present petition for any hearing including mediation.

¶116

A perusal of the order dated 29.10.2025 reflects that the learned Family Court had taken note of the fact that the matter was pending for RE since 16.12.2024, and despite the same, the petitioner herein had not appeared before

CM (M) 324/2026

Page 22 of 25

the learned Family Court to conduct the same. The said order further records the contention of the present respondent that the petitioner had been appearing as a counsel before various Courts during that point of time. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the order dated 21.11.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, whereby issues were framed in the Divorce proceedings and the parties were directed to file their list of witnesses. It is further noted that vide order dated 29.07.2024, the petitioner was directed to furnish his evidence by way of affidavit on completion of respondent’s evidence, which took place on 22.10.2024, and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was only on 29.10.2025 that first effective opportunity was granted to the latter to lead RE, is not made out.

¶121

It is also not in dispute that on 31.05.2024, the right of the petitioner to cross examine the respondent had been closed by the learned Family Court, and thereafter, and application under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 17 of the CPC, was preferred by the present petitioner in the Divorce proceedings, which was allowed by the learned Family Court vide order dated 29.07.2024, and the right of the petitioner to cross examine the present respondent was reopened, subject to cost of INR 5,000/-. The same substantiates that adequate opportunities had been granted by the learned Family Court to the petitioner to diligently pursue the Divorce proceedings.

¶122

A perusal of the order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the learned Family Court further reflects that despite repeated directions, the petitioner had failed to appear before the learned Family Court for leading RE, and the learned Family Court, while taking note of the same, had granted a last and final opportunity to the petitioner to conduct RE, subject to payment of cost of INR 10,000/-.

CM (M) 324/2026

Page 23 of 25

Though the petitioner had placed on record certain medical documents before this Court as well as the learned Family Court, the same do not sufficiently explain the repeated defaults on the part of the petitioner in appearing before the learned Family Court. This Court further finds merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent that despite the petitioner’s non-appearance before the learned Family Court on medical grounds, his appearance continued to be recorded in multiple orders passed by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court during the relevant period. 31. Normally, this Court would be inclined to grant indulgence in matrimonial proceedings, considering the nature of the dispute involved; however, in the peculiar facts of the present case, the conduct of the petitioner, as borne out from the record, clearly demonstrates that he has consistently attempted to delay the divorce proceedings at every stage. It is further noted that despite repeated opportunities and sufficient indulgence having been granted by the learned Family Court, the petitioner failed to diligently pursue the Divorce proceedings and had tried to stall the said proceedings, on one pretext or another.

¶127

The Hon’ble Supreme in Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. v. B. Gurappa Naidu⁵ , has held that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is to be exercised by this Court only in the cases where there has been an unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, gross abuse of jurisdiction, or an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Courts or Tribunals. The relevant portion(s) of the said judgment is reproduced as under: -

¶128

“ 35. In short, the principles laid down in the above matters is as follows:

¶129

5 2026 SCC OnLine SC 745

CM (M) 324/2026

Page 24 of 25

a) The power of superintendence under Article 227 is not to be exercised unless there has been an (a) unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in Court or tribunal, or (b) gross abuse of jurisdiction or (c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in Courts or tribunals.

¶134

b) It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record.

¶135

c) The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal.”

¶136

Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgment and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court warrants no interference. The learned Family Court had acted well within its jurisdiction and was justified in closing the right of the petitioner to lead RE, particularly after granting repeated opportunities and sufficient indulgence to the petitioner.

¶137

The present petition is dismissed and disposed of accordingly.

¶138

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶139

Copy of this order be sent to the learned Judge, Family Court-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, for necessary information.

¶140

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith .

AMIT SHARMA, J

MAY 11, 2026/ db

CM (M) 324/2026

Page 25 of 25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶146

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 13/05/2026 at 11:01:00

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 15.12.2025 of the learned Judge, Family Court-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in HMA No. 1822/2022, titled Harleen Kaur vs. Kapil Dahiya, whereby the petitioner's right to lead Respondent Evidence (RE) in the divorce proceedings was closed on account of his non-appearance.¶24
Family Court-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi · 15.12.2025
Prior proceeding
Marriage solemnized on 28.12.2013; male child born 24.11.2015; divorce proceedings under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 instituted by the respondent against the petitioner in 2022 on grounds of cruelty and desertion.¶25
Prior proceeding
Vide order dated 21.11.2023, issues were framed in the Divorce proceedings and both parties were directed to file their respective lists of witnesses within 15 days; the petitioner did not file his list of witnesses in due time.¶75
Prior proceeding
Vide orders dated 04.03.2024 and 09.04.2024, the petitioner sought adjournments on the pretext of exploring settlement.¶80
Prior proceeding
When asked to appear, the petitioner's counsel stated that the petitioner was not medically fit to appear before the learned Family Court.¶84
Prior proceeding
Vide order dated 31.05.2024, the petitioner's right to cross-examine the respondent was closed on an earlier occasion and the matter was re-notified for 29.07.2024 for RE; according to the respondent, this makes the petitioner's claim that the first effective RE date was 29.10.2025 untenable.¶88
Prior proceeding
Application under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC allowed vide order dated 29.07.2024; cross-examination of the respondent reopened and the petitioner granted 150 more minutes, subject to cost of INR 5,000/-.¶97
Prior proceeding
Further cross-examination conducted on 15.10.2024 and concluded on 22.10.2024; matter adjourned for RE with direction to the petitioner to supply advance copy of his evidence by way of affidavit.¶101
Prior proceeding
Vide order dated 16.12.2024, when the matter was fixed for RE the petitioner filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 CPC and another under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking visitation rights; he also filed affidavit evidence travelling beyond the pleadings, against which the respondent filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking discarding thereof; the petitioner also failed to file affidavit evidence of the remaining two witnesses.¶102
Prior proceeding
Vide order dated 26.07.2025, the petitioner was categorically directed to appear in person on the next date, 22.09.2025; he did not appear and instead changed his counsel, who sought an adjournment.¶106
Prior proceeding
Vide order dated 29.10.2025, on the petitioner's failure to appear, the learned Family Court imposed cost of INR 10,000/- and granted a last and final opportunity to lead RE, failing which his right would stand closed and defence struck off; on the same date the petitioner also preferred an application under Order XI Rule 14 CPC.¶106
Prior proceeding
On 24.11.2025 the Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was adjourned to 15.12.2025, the date of the impugned order; the petitioner contends the matter was taken up at 10:00 AM contrary to the 02:00 PM direction in the order dated 29.10.2025.¶58
Prior proceeding
Medical communications from Medanta Hospital showed the petitioner booked his own appointments for 24.11.2025 at 11:30 AM and 15.12.2025 at 10:38 AM, i.e., the very dates the matter was listed before the learned Family Court.¶111
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's transfer petition (Civil TP No. 1/2026) before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Tis Hazari Courts was dismissed vide order dated 17.03.2026.¶115
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's habeas corpus petition W.P. (CRL) 735/2026 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.03.2026 of the learned Division Bench of this Court.¶115
Prior proceeding
Orders dated 14.02.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 7906/2010 and 26.02.2024 in SLP (C) 21647/2023 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court recorded the petitioner's appearance as counsel; despite this, the Family Court's order dated 09.04.2024 recorded his plea of medical unfitness, and he did not appear before the Family Court until filing of the present petition, including for mediation.¶115

Kapil Dahiya v. Harleen Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil Dahiya v. Harleen Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Gupta Vs Sushil Sunny & Ors.

Dharamvir Nanda Vs Ranbir Nanda (Deceased) Thr Lr Sanjeev Nanda

Hardeep Chabra Vs Genius Heavy Duty Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Natma Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vrc Constructions India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Amit Kumar Vs Prema (Now Deceased) Thr Proposed Lrs

M S Tdi Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Umed Singh & Anr.

Lalit Jaiswal and Ors. Vs Moneywise Financial Service Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. & Anr.

Anuj Goyal Vs Resolution Professional Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited & Anr.

Munna Lal Vs Vidya Rani & Anr.

Babita Tokas Vs Veena Dahiya

S M Zulfiqar Alam Vs Dr Dilraj Kaur & Ors.

Manoj Babbar Vs M/S Jaina Protperties and Finance Ltd. & Ors.

Nootan Vs Rahul

The Shreeyans Educational Society Vs Shri Ashok Kumar and Anr.