Ritu Taneja v. Vineet Taneja

$~11 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CM(M) 1156/2017 R ..... Petitioner Through:

Ms.Gurmeet Bindra, Advocate versus V ..... Respondent Through:

Mr.Vineet Taneja, respondent in person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

O R D E R

% 09.08.2018 CM APPL. 30052/2018 Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

CM APPL. 30051/2018 1.

The petitioner is seeking clarification of the order dated 23rd May, 2018.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 23rd May, 2018, this Court directed Deputy Registrar to send two pen drives to the learned Family Court in the sealed cover and the Family Court was given liberty to examine the same and pass appropriate orders as may be necessary in the interest of justice.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent relied on those videography whereupon the petitioner sought the copy of the video recording which was declined by the learned Family Court on the ground that no liberty has been given to the petitioner to seek the copy of the same and therefore, the petitioner's application was dismissed.

4.

The order dated 23rd May, 2018 is clarified to the extent that this Court has left the matter to the entire discretion of the learned Family Court to examine the videos and pass appropriate orders as may be considered necessary in the interest of justice. In that view of the matter, the learned Family Court is at liberty to examine the contention of the parties and consider whether it is in the interest of justice to furnish the copy of videos to the petitioner.

5.

The application disposed of.

6.

Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the parties under the signature of the Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J.

AUGUST 09, 2018 ds