FAROOQ ALAM BAIG vs VANIA MIRZA @ PRIYA KUMARI

Judgment text excerpt

$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 3rdApril, 2025 + CM(M) 3424/2024, CM APPL. 17452/2025, CM APPL. 17453/2025, CM APPL. 17462/2025 & CM APPL. 17463/2025 FAROOQ ALAM BAIG .....Petitioner Through: Petitioner-in-person versus VANIA MIRZA @ PRIYA KUMARI .....Respondent Through: Dr. N. Pradeep Sharma, Mr. Naresh Kumar, Mr. M.R. Singh, Mr. Vikas Krishna, Ms. Kiran Sharma, Ms. Tisha and Mr. Virat Agarwal, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner has filed a guardianship petition which was registered as GP No. 12/2018. 2. The aforesaid petition was taken up for consideration by the learned Judge, Family Court, on 19.01.2024. 3. Noticing that no one had appeared from the side of petitioner, the same was dismissed-in-default, while observing that petitioner was not interested in pursuing his such petition. 4. Petitioner, thereafter, moved an application seeking restoration and in his such application, he also gave reasons about his previous non-appearances. 5. Such application was moved by him on 01.02.2024. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 3424/2024 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:04.04.2025 15:39:08 6. Though the application had been moved without any unnecessary delay, the learned Judge, Family Court permitted restoration only after he was to be acquitted of charges in a criminal case i.e. case related to FIR No. 16/18 PS South Avenue, New Delhi registered for commission of offences under Sections 376/377/366/323/341/342/506/420/467/354B/34 IPC. 7. Petitioner appears in person and his grievance is merely to the effect that since he had filed application without any delay, learned Judge, Family Court should have permitted its restoration, instead of returning findings on merits of the mai