Gautam Wason vs Reena Chopra
2017 Latest Caselaw 2075 Del

$~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

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