Family court appeal disposed of as infructuous after the appellant withdrew all cases she had filed against the respondent, with the respondent's counsel accepting the withdrawal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
( 2024:HHC:8845 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
FAO(FC) no. 15 of 2023 Decided on 19th September, 2024
_______________________________________________________ Reena Devi ....Appellant Versus Sunil Kumar ...Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram_ Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. Narender Guleria, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate.
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice (oral)
Learned counsel for the appellant states on instructions that the appellant has withdrawn all the cases which she had filed against the respondent and learned counsel for the respondent also
accepts the same. Therefore, this appeal is disposed of as infructuous.
( M.S. Ramachandra Rao ) Chief Justice
19th September, 2024 ( Satyen Vaidya ) (priti) Judge
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Reena Devi
Sunil Kumar
M.S. Ramachandra Rao
Satyen Vaidya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
