SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Gautam Wason vs Reena Chopra on 27 April, 2017

$~23.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 73/2017
GAUTAM WASON ….. Appellant
Through: Mr. Vivek Luthra, Advocate
versus
REENA CHOPRA ….. Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
ORDER

% 28.04.2017

CM APPL. 16158/2017 (exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 73/2017

1. The appellant/husband is aggrieved by an order dated 27.03.2017
passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, North-West, Rohini Courts,
Delhi, in Guardianship Petition No.12/2017, whereunder an application filed
by him praying inter alia for advancing the date of hearing in the petition
was turned down on the ground that the date already fixed, i.e., 09.05.2017,
is not far away.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that on 31.1.2017, the
appellant had filed a petition before the court of the learned Judge, Family
Court under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for seeking
custody of his two minor children from his wife, the respondent herein. On
01.02.2017, he was directed to file a declaration in terms of Section 10 of
the Act alongwith the verification clause that was missing in the petition.
On 28.02.2017, the appellant filed a declaration alongwith the verification

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 73/2017 Page 1 of 2
clause. However, learned Judge, Family Court directed that the appellant
ought to have filed an application for seeking amendment of the
Guardianship petition. On 02.03.2017, the petitioner filed an application
under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the Guardianship
petition alongwith the proposed petition. The said application was however
directed to be listed on the date already fixed, i.e., 09.05.2017. Aggrieved by
the said order, the appellant filed an application for seeking advancement of
the date of hearing in the amendment application, which has been rejected
by the impugned order.

3. Having regard to the fact that by now, there is only one week left for
the date of hearing fixed by the learned Judge, Family Court for considering
the Guardianship petition as also the amendment application filed by the
petitioner, we decline to entertain the present appeal. However, the learned
Judge, Family Court, North West, Rohini Courts is requested to hear the
learned counsel for the appellant on the amendment application filed by him
and dispose of the same on the date fixed so that the main petition and the
stay application filed therewith can be heard immediately thereafter.

4. The appeal is disposed of.

HIMA KOHLI, J

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
APRIL 28, 2017
rkb/ap

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 73/2017 Page 2 of 2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation