RADHIKA JULKA vs GAURAV JULKA

Judgment text excerpt

$~72 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 06th May, 2025 + CM(M) 857/2025 & CM APPL. 27524-27525/2025 RADHIKA JULKA .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Aman Hingorani, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Naseem Ahmed, Advocates. versus GAURAV JULKA .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner seeks divorce on the ground of cruelty. 2. Her husband filed written statement/reply to such divorce petition and in view thereof, the petitioner moved application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC praying for admission-decree. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by dismissal of her such application. 4. During course of the arguments, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has, in order to demonstrate such constructive admission, taken the Court through the averments made in the petition and the corresponding reply given by the husband/respondent. It is also contended that her husband has given vague, general and evasive denial to the specific pleadings of the petitioner and such denial is no denial in the eyes of law. 5. This Court has gone through the averments made in the divorce petition as well as the reply filed by her husband. 6. The instances of cruelty have been elaborated in para 6 of the petition Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 857/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:07.05.2025 16:13:21 and the corresponding reply would indicate that there is no specific admission, direct or implied, with respect to any instance of cruelty. On the contrary, while replying, the husband has, in no uncertain terms, submitted that the contents of all such paras were wrong and denied. 7. Admittedly, at various places, he has admitted that he got financial help from his in-laws but that, in itself, would not mean and indi