High Court of DelhiCM(M)/324/2026

Kapil Dahiya v. Harleen Kaur

2026-05-11Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Amit Sharma25 pages

$~73 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 324/2026 & CM APPL. 8883/2026 (Stay) KAPIL DAHIYA .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Rakesh Dahiya, Adv. along with petitioner in person through VC versus HARLEEN KAUR .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Amit Bajaj, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

O R D E R

% 11.05.2026 1.

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2.

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeks the following prayers: - "a) Pass any order/direction thereby setting aside/quashing order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Family Court Judge, District Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in HMA/1822/2022 titled as "Harleen Kaur vs Kapil Dahiya" and thereby direct the Ld. Family Court judge restore the right of the Petitioner (then Respondent) to give evidence in his favour in the interest of justice;

b) Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper." 3.

The present petition assails the order dated 15.12.20251 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts2 in HMA 1 Impugned Order 2 Learned Family Court The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

No. 1822/20223, titled as "Harleen Kaur vs. Kapil Dahiya", whereby the petitioner's right to lead Respondent Evidence4 was closed by the learned Family Court, on account of the petitioner's non-appearance. 4.

It is the case of the petitioner that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 28.12.2013, and a male child was born out of the wedlock on 24.11.2015. Divorce proceedings under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, were instituted by the present respondent against the petitioner, in the year 2022, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 5.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the latter has been suffering from chronic and recurring paralytic attacks and was medically unfit to participate in the Divorce proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Family Court, without considering the condition of the petitioner at that relevant point of time, had arbitrarily and abruptly closed the right of the petitioner to lead evidence, despite there being medical documents in support of the same. 6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to the order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, to submit that on the said date, petitioner had filed two applications before the learned Family Court. One of the applications was filed under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 of the CPC and the other was filed under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking visitation rights. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the said date, the learned Family Court had adjourned the matter for 15.02.2025, only for the purposes of arguments on the said applications, and not for RE. The order dated 16.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - 3 Divorce Proceedings/Divorce Petition 4 RE The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent herein had sought adjournments before the learned Family Court on two occasions, i.e., 15.02.2025 and 03.05.2025. The orders passed by the learned Family Court on the said dates are reproduced as under: - The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further draws attention of this Court to order dated 26.07.2025 passed by the learned Family Court and submits that on the said date, the matter was fixed for hearing of the aforesaid applications, The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

however, the learned Family Court had wrongly recorded that the matter was fixed for RE that day. The order dated 26.07.2025 is reproduced as under: - 9.

Learned counsel of the petitioner further submits that on 22.09.2025, there was no occasion for conducting RE of the petitioner, as the petitioner had engaged a new counsel, who had appeared before the learned Family Court for the first time. The order dated 22.09.2025 is reproduced as under: - The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

10.

In view thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the effective date for the RE to be conducted was 29.10.2025. It is further stated that on the said date, the petitioner was suffering from fever and he could not appear before the learned Family Court to tender his evidence, and in support of the same necessary medical documents were also placed on record before the learned Family Court; however, the learned Family Court, while ignoring the said fact, had imposed a cost of INR 10,000/- on the petitioner and had granted him a last and final opportunity for completion of RE. It is further The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

pointed out that on the said date, an application under Order XI Rule 14 CPC had also been preferred by the present petitioner for production of certain documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said order wrongly records that repeated opportunities were granted to the petitioner for conducting RE, and it is only on 29.10.2025, the first opportunity to conduct RE arose. The order dated 29.10.2025 is reproduced as under: - The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

11.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 24.11.2025, the learned Presiding Officer was on leave, and the matter was then adjourned for 15.12.2025, i.e., the date of passing of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 15.12.2025, the Divorce proceedings were taken up for hearing at 10:00 AM upon a request being made by the opposite side, despite there being a categorical direction in the order dated 29.10.2025 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

that the matter will be taken up at 02:00 PM on 24.11.2025. It is further pointed out that the aforesaid application filed by the parties before the learned Family Court were taken up for hearing the very same day, post lunch time, i.e., 02:30 PM. The impugned order dated 15.12.2025 is reproduced as under: - The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

12.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the latter had suffered from brain stroke and is taking medical therapies for recovering from various medical conditions. It is submitted that in view of the same, the petitioner had to resign from various legal panels, and he had only started appearing before various forums as an Advocate since January, 2023. 13.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Family Court ought to have decided the aforesaid applications filed on behalf of the parties, before closing the petitioner's right to lead RE. 14.

In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that an opportunity may be granted to the latter for completion of his RE, subject to payment of cost.

15.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent draws attention of this Court to order dated 21.11.2023 passed by the learned Family Court and submits that the issues in the Divorce proceedings were framed on the said date of hearing and the learned Family Court had directed both the parties to file their respective list of witnesses within 15 days, and despite the said directions, the petitioner did not file his list of witnesses in due time. The order dated 21.11.2023 passed by the learned Family Court is reproduced as under: - The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

16.

Learned counsel for the respondent further draws attention of this Court to the orders dated 04.03.2024 and 09.04.2024 passed by the learned Family Court to contend that the petitioner, on the pretext of exploring settlement, had sought adjournments on two occasions before the learned Family Court. It is further submitted that when the learned Family Court had asked the petitioner to appear before it, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stated The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

that the petitioner was not medically fit to appear before the learned FamilyCourt. The said orders are reproduced as under: - The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

17.

Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the petitioner had failed to appear before the learned Family Court on various occasions, and did not participate in the Divorce proceedings on one pretext or another. It is further submitted that sufficient opportunities had already been granted to the petitioner by the learned Family Court; however, the petitioner only intended to delay the Divorce proceedings. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent draws attention of this Court to the order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, whereby on an earlier occasion, the right of the petitioner to cross examine the respondent had been closed.

It is further submitted that even the learned Family Court had taken note of the conduct of the petitioner in the said order and had observed that the petitioner was intentionally trying to delay the Divorce proceedings. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court vide the said order had re-notified the matter on 29.07.2024 for the purposes of RE, and thus, the submission of the petitioner that the first effective date for the RE was 29.10.2025 is untenable. The order dated 31.05.2024 reads as under: - The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

18.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that after the aforesaid order dated 31.05.2024 was passed, the petitioner had moved an application before the learned Family Court under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking reopening of his right to cross examine the respondent. It is further submitted that the said application was allowed by the learned Family The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Court vide order dated 29.07.2024 and the petitioner herein, was granted 150 more minutes to conclude the cross examination of the respondent, subject to cost of INR 5,000/-. The order dated 29.07.2024 is reproduced as under: - The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

19.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that on 15.10.2024, further cross examination of the respondent was conducted by the petitioner, and on 22.10.2024, the said cross examination was concluded and the matter was adjourned for RE, with a direction to the petitioner to supply an advance copy of his evidence by way of affidavit.

20.

Learned counsel for the respondent further draws attention of this Court to the order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the learned Family Court to contend that when the matter was fixed for RE, the petitioner, with an intent to delay the proceedings, had filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 CPC along with another application under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking visitation rights.

It is further stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that on the said date, the petitioner had filed his evidence by way of affidavit before the learned Family Court, and since the contents thereof travelled beyond the scope of the pleadings, the respondent had filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking discarding of the said evidence by way of affidavit filed on behalf of the present petitioner. It is further submitted that while framing issues in the Divorce proceedings vide order dated 21.11.2023, the learned Family Court had directed the petitioner to file the list of witnesses; however, the petitioner failed to do so, and the said conduct of the petitioner was also recorded in the order dated 16.12.2024.

It is further submitted that the petitioner had also been directed to file evidence by way of affidavit of the remaining two witnesses, which he failed to file till date. 21.

Learned counsel for the respondent further draws attention of this Court to the order dated 26.07.2025 passed by the learned Family Court to contend that there was a categorical direction of the learned Family Court for the petitioner to appear in person on the next date of hearing, i.e., 22.09.2025; The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

however, the petitioner did not appear before the learned Family Court and had rather changed his counsel, who had further requested for an adjournment. 22.

Learned counsel for the respondent further draws attention of this Court to the order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the learned Family Court to contend that even on the said date, the petitioner had failed to appear in the Divorce proceedings and the learned Family Court, while taking note of the same, had imposed a cost of INR 10,000/- on the petitioner, and had given the petitioner a last and final opportunity to lead his RE, and in case he failed to do so, his right would stand closed and his defence would be struck off. 23.

At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent draws attention of this Court to the medical documents annexed by the petitioner along with the present petition, and in particular, to the following two communications received by the petitioner from Medanta Hospital, regarding his medical appointments. The said communications are reproduced as under: - The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the said communications pertain to the medical appointments booked by the petitioner for himself for 24.11.2025 at 11:30 AM and 15.12.2025 at 10:38 AM, i.e., the very dates when the matter was listed before the learned Family Court. It is submitted that the same clearly shows that these appointments were taken by the petitioner on the exact dates when the Divorce proceedings were listed before the learned Family Court and had rely upon the same as a ground for non-appearance.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

24.

Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the petitioner had also filed a transfer petition before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Tis Hazari Courts, being Civil TP No. 1/2026 seeking transfer of the Divorce proceedings, which was dismissed vide order dated 17.03.2026. It is further submitted that the petitioner had also preferred a hebeas corpus petition being W.P. (CRL) 735/2026 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.03.2026 passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court. 25.

Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records. 26.

Learned counsel for the respondent has handed up in Court today multiple orders passed by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the appearance of the present petitioner has been recorded as a counsel, and the same are taken on record. Attention of this Court has specifically been drawn to the orders dated 14.02.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7906/2010 and 26.02.2024 passed in SLP (C) 21647/2023 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the appearance of the present petitioner was recorded as a counsel. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent points out that despite the petitioner having appeared before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the aforesaid dates, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 09.04.

2024, had recorded the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that he was medically unfit to appear in the divorce proceedings. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent had pointed out that the petitioner had not appeared before the learned Family Court till the filing of the present petition for any hearing including mediation.

27.

A perusal of the order dated 29.10.2025 reflects that the learned Family Court had taken note of the fact that the matter was pending for RE since 16.12.2024, and despite the same, the petitioner herein had not appeared before The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

the learned Family Court to conduct the same. The said order further records the contention of the present respondent that the petitioner had been appearing as a counsel before various Courts during that point of time. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the order dated 21.11.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, whereby issues were framed in the Divorce proceedings and the parties were directed to file their list of witnesses. It is further noted that vide order dated 29.07.2024, the petitioner was directed to furnish his evidence by way of affidavit on completion of respondent's evidence, which took place on 22.10.2024, and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was only on 29.10.2025 that first effective opportunity was granted to the latter to lead RE, is not made out. 28.

It is also not in dispute that on 31.05.2024, the right of the petitioner to cross examine the respondent had been closed by the learned Family Court, and thereafter, and application under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 17 of the CPC, was preferred by the present petitioner in the Divorce proceedings, which was allowed by the learned Family Court vide order dated 29.07.2024, and the right of the petitioner to cross examine the present respondent was reopened, subject to cost of INR 5,000/-. The same substantiates that adequate opportunities had been granted by the learned Family Court to the petitioner to diligently pursue the Divorce proceedings.

29.

A perusal of the order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the learned Family Court further reflects that despite repeated directions, the petitioner had failed to appear before the learned Family Court for leading RE, and the learned Family Court, while taking note of the same, had granted a last and final opportunity to the petitioner to conduct RE, subject to payment of cost of INR 10,000/-.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

30.

Though the petitioner had placed on record certain medical documents before this Court as well as the learned Family Court, the same do not sufficiently explain the repeated defaults on the part of the petitioner in appearing before the learned Family Court. This Court further finds merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent that despite the petitioner's non-appearance before the learned Family Court on medical grounds, his appearance continued to be recorded in multiple orders passed by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court during the relevant period. 31.

Normally, this Court would be inclined to grant indulgence in matrimonial proceedings, considering the nature of the dispute involved; however, in the peculiar facts of the present case, the conduct of the petitioner, as borne out from the record, clearly demonstrates that he has consistently attempted to delay the divorce proceedings at every stage. It is further noted that despite repeated opportunities and sufficient indulgence having been granted by the learned Family Court, the petitioner failed to diligently pursue the Divorce proceedings and had tried to stall the said proceedings, on one pretext or another.

32.

The Hon'ble Supreme in Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. v. B. Gurappa Naidu5, has held that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is to be exercised by this Court only in the cases where there has been an unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, gross abuse of jurisdiction, or an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Courts or Tribunals. The relevant portion(s) of the said judgment is reproduced as under: - "35. In short, the principles laid down in the above matters is as follows: 5 2026 SCC OnLine SC 745 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

a) The power of superintendence under Article 227 is not to be exercised unless there has been an (a) unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in Court or tribunal, or (b) gross abuse of jurisdiction or (c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in Courts or tribunals. b) It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record.

c) The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal."

33.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgment and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court warrants no interference. The learned Family Court had acted well within its jurisdiction and was justified in closing the right of the petitioner to lead RE, particularly after granting repeated opportunities and sufficient indulgence to the petitioner. 34.

The present petition is dismissed and disposed of accordingly. 35.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 36.

Copy of this order be sent to the learned Judge, Family Court-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, for necessary information. 37.

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith. AMIT SHARMA, J MAY 11, 2026/db The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.