MRS PRIYANKA vs MR SAURABH CHHABRA

Judgment text excerpt

$~79 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 08.04.2025 + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 137/2025 MRS PRIYANKA .....Appellant Through: Dr.A.K.Bakshi, Mr.Balraj Anand, Advs. with petitioner in person. versus MR SAURABH CHHABRA .....Respondent Through: Mr.Shashank Deo Sudhi, Mr.Aru Prakash, Advs, with respondent in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL) CM APPL. 20832/2025 (Exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 137/2025 & CM APPL. 20833/2025 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, challenging the Order dated 01.03.2025 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Impugned Order’) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Family Court’) in HMA No.502/2023, directing that the application filed by the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed MAT.APP.(F.C.) 137/2025 Page 1 of 3 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Date:10.04.2025 18:38:25 respondent herein under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) shall be argued before the other applications that are pending before it, including the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, ‘HMA’) filed by the appellant herein. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice of this appeal, submits that the present appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is not maintainable inasmuch as the Impugned Order is merely interlocutory and procedural in nature. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant disputes the above submission and submits that as the application under Section 24 of the HMA has been directed to be taken up only post the hearing of the application Section 340 of the