KANIKA KANDHARI vs RISHI KANDHARI

Judgment text excerpt

$~55 and 56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 27.11.2025 + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 189/2019, CM APPL. 32240/2019 and CM APPL. 63954/2025 KANIKA KANDHARI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Mr. Anant Chaitanya Dutta, Ms. Anamika Bag Adv along with the Appellant in-person. versus RISHI KANDHARI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ganesh Kumar Sharma and Mr. Siddharth Singh, Advs. + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 287/2019, CM APPL. 1657/2021, CM APPL. 13104/2022 and CM APPL. 47487/2022 KANIKA KANDHARI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Mr. Anant Chaitanya Dutta, Ms. Anamika Bag Adv along with the Appellant in-person. versus RISHI KANDHARI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ganesh Kumar Sharma and Mr. Siddharth Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR J U D G M E N T (ORAL) ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. 1. Through the present Appeals, the Appellant impugns the correctness of two separate orders passed by the learned Principal Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN MAT.APP.(F.C.) 189/2019 & connected matter Signing Date:27.11.2025 Page 1 of 4 18:24:00 Judge (East), Family Courts, Karkardooma, Delhi in HMA No. 1461/2018. 2. Through MAT.APP.(F.C.) 189/2019, the Appellant assails the correctness of an order dated 28.03.2019, wherein an application filed by her under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [hereinafter referred to as ‘HMA’] was disposed of. 3. While deciding the aforesaid application, the Family Court directed the Respondent to bear the school fee and other school related expenses of the minor child. In addition to this, the Respondent was also directed to pay basic utilities charges, LIC premiums and EMI of the loan pertaining to the alleged jointly owned property. However, the Family Court has failed