SMT. NIKITA @ RINKI vs SHRI. AJAY KHANDELWAL

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 01.04.2025 Pronounced on:07.05.2025 + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 128/2024 SMT. NIKITA @ RINKI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Abhinav Bajaj, Mr. Ajay Malik, Mr. Saksham Ojha & Ms. Geetashi Chauhan, Advs. versus SHRI. AJAY KHANDELWAL ....Respondent Through: Mr. Deepak Khadaria, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR JUDGMENT RENU BHATNAGAR, J. CM APPL. 22867/2024 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 128/2024 3. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the Order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Signature Not Verified MAT.APP.(F.C.) 128/2024 Page 1 of 8 Signed By:VIJAYA LAKSHMI DOBHAL Signing Date:07.05.2025 17:22:20 Court, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as,‘Family Court’) in HMA No.1111/2023 titled Ajay Khandelwal v. Nikita @ Rinki, dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘CPC’), while observing as follows:- “6. It is matter of fact that prior to filing of the present divorce petition, petitioner filed petition u/s 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against respondent for seeking decree of restitution of conjugal rights which was subsequently compromised between the parties. Petitioner alleges that respondent, despite settling the matter, has refused to join his company and resume her matrimonial obligations. 7. In view of above and as the parties have lastly resided together as husband and w