Delhi High Court
Anjali Gupta vs Naveen Goel on 31 July, 2017
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 8/2017
ANJALI GUPTA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
Versus
NAVEEN GOEL ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Shabnam Sheikh, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
ORDER
% 31.07.2017
CM APPL. No. 2451/2017 (condonation of delay)
1. The present application has been filed by the appellant seeking
condonation of delay of 90 days in filing the accompanying appeal under
Section 19 of the Family Court. The appeal assails the judgment and decree
dated 08.09.2016 passed by the learned Family Court allowing a joint petition
filed by the appellant and the respondent under Section 13 B (2) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, for seeking dissolution of marriage and grant of a decree of
divorce.
2. The explanation offered by the appellant for seeking condonation of
delay is that she was unaware of the technicalities of law; that the respondent
no.1 has obtained a divorce on playing a fraud on her; that the respondent had
threatened her and she was forced into making a statement before the Family
Court under "threat and intoxication"; that thereafter the appellant went into
depression and went "out of mind". Only after the appellant had recovered
and realizing the gravity of situation, did she file the present appeal.
3. We may note on a perusal of the paper-book that on 15.7.2015, the
appellant and the respondent had jointly filed a first motion under Section 13
B (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was stated in the said petition that the
parties had solemnised their marriage on 30.01.2015 and were living
separately right from the date of their marriage. The said petition was
allowed by an order dated 03.02.2016. While allowing the said petition, the
Family Court had recorded the joint statement of the parties that their
marriage was never consumated and they have been living separately from the
date of their marriage due to temperamental differences. They had also
stated that they had amicably settled all their claims and disputes related to
their marriage with regard to istridhan, permanent alimony and maintenance
etc, as per the terms mentioned in the said petition.
4. On 10.08.2016, a joint motion under Section 13B (2) was presented by
the appellant and the respondent after expiry of six months reckoned from
3.2.2016. The said petition was taken up by the learned Family Court in the
presence of both the parties. The order dated 08.09.2016 specifically records
that efforts for reconciliation were made by the learned Family Court by
talking to both the parties, but were fruitless and that both the parties had
jointly stated that there was no possibility of their residing together as they
had made up their minds to seek dissolution of marriage. As a result, the
statement of both the parties was recorded separately.
5. The appellant confirmed before the Family Court that she had received
all the gold jewellery from the respondent. Thereafter, the impugned order
came to be passed dissolving the marriage of the parties by granting a decree
of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B (2) of the Hindu Marriage
Act.
6. In the aforesaid background, the contention of counsel for the appellant
that the appellant was unaware of the legal nuances and the consequences of
making such a statement before the Family Court, is un-acceptable; nor are
we in a position to accept a bald averment to the effect that in all this duration,
the appellant was under depression and therefore could not think properly.
During the course of arguments, counsel for the appellant has been called
upon to point out any documents filed along with the present application to
demonstrate that the appellant was under depression/undergoing medical
treatment.
7. Learning counsel for the appellant concedes that no such medical
record has been filed. Instead, he draws our attention to a complaint
purportedly addressed by the appellant to the SHO of Police Station, Harsh
Vihar, Delhi. The said document is un-dated and without any endorsement
of receipt from the concerned police station.
8. In the given facts and circumstances, it has to be held that no just or
sufficient reason has been offered for seeking condonation of delay of 90 days
in filing the accompanying appeal. The present application is accordingly
dismissed. As a result thereof, the appeal also stands dismissed.
HIMA KOHLI, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
JULY 31, 2017/P
