Gargi Sheresth v. Vanshul Chawla

$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 136/2018 GARGI SHERESTH ..... Appellant Through Ms. Bandana Grover, Advocate versus VANSHUL CHAWLA ..... Respondent Through Mr. P.Bashita and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

O R D E R

% 18.01.2019 The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 23.05.2018 passed by the Family Court by which an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the appellant, respondent (wife) before the Family Court has been rejected. Counsel submits that the appellant has now shifted from Pune to Gurgaon from the month of February, 2019. It is further pointed out that the child would be admitted to a School in Gurgaon. In this backdrop, counsel submits that any order of meeting with the child should be at Gurgaon so that the child does not have to travel from Gurgaon to the Saket Court. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to the offer so made to avoid any inconvenience to the child.

Learned counsel for the appellant also prays that the observations made by the Family Court at second page of the order with respect to the conduct of the counsel should be expunged as the counsel did not have any intention to interrupt the court proceedings or to show disrespect to the Court. Counsel for the respondent has also no objection to the same if the order at page two relating

to the conduct of the counsel is expunged in view of the explanation so rendered.

In view of the stand taken by the counsels for the parties, the present appeal is disposed of with the agreed direction that in case the Family Court passes an order with regard to meeting of the child with the father, the venue shall be at Gurgaon and not Saket Court.

In view of the explanation rendered, the observations made by the Family Court would be treated as deleted.

The appeal is disposed of in above terms.

G.S.SISTANI, J JYOTI SINGH, J JANUARY 18, 2019 pst / MAT.APP.(F.C.) 136/2018 2/2