Priyanka vs Pankaj Sharma
2017 Latest Caselaw 2022 Del

$~37
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    CONT.CAS(C) 218/2017

      PRIYANKA                                             ..... Petitioner
                   Through:       Ms. Richa Kapoor, Advocate.
                         versus
      PANKAJ SHARMA                                        ..... Respondent
                   Through:       Respondent in person.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
                   ORDER

% 25.04.2017

1. Appearance has been entered by the respondent, who hands over the proof of his identity, which is taken on record. He confirms that he has received a complete set of the paper book.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that first motion of divorce in the present case was jointly moved by the parties before the Principal Judge, Family Court, East, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi on 18.05.2015 as the parties had arrived at a settlement recorded on 25.03.2015. The first motion was granted by the Principal Judge, Family Court on 09.07.2015. Thereafter, the Respondent had abruptly stopped appearing before the Family Court and as a result, the second motion could not be moved.

3. The respondent seeks to explain his inaction in taking steps to jointly file the second motion for divorce by stating that his mother is suffering from cancer and she had to undergo a surgery a few months ago and he is

the only caregiver. He volunteers that he is still ready to go ahead with the MOU and approach the Family Court along with the petitioner for seeking revival of the second motion, that came to be dismissed in default.

4. In view of the submission made by the respondent and recorded hereinabove, learned counsel for the petitioner states that she does not wish to press the present petition any further.

5. Both the parties shall jointly approach the Family Court for seeking revival of the second motion which has been dismissed in default. The Principal Judge, Family Court is requested to examine the case law relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner for seeking restoration of the second motion and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

6. The petition is disposed of as not pressed.

7. Parties shall appear before the Principal Judge, Family Court, East, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi on 11.05.2017, for further proceedings.

HIMA KOHLI, J

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J APRIL 25, 2017 gr