Delhi High Court
Mrs Priyanka vs Mr Saurabh Chhabra on 8 April, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~79
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 08.04.2025
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 137/2025
MRS PRIYANKA .....Appellant
Through: Dr.A.K.Bakshi, Mr.Balraj
Anand, Advs. with petitioner in
person.
versus
MR SAURABH CHHABRA .....Respondent
Through: Mr.Shashank Deo Sudhi,
Mr.Aru Prakash, Advs, with
respondent in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 20832/2025 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 137/2025 & CM APPL. 20833/2025
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, challenging the
Order dated 01.03.2025 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Impugned Order’)
passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala House
Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Family Court’) in
HMA No.502/2023, directing that the application filed by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAT.APP.(F.C.) 137/2025 Page 1 of 3
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:10.04.2025
18:38:25
respondent herein under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) shall be argued before the other
applications that are pending before it, including the application under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, ‘HMA’) filed
by the appellant herein.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on
advance notice of this appeal, submits that the present appeal filed
under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is not maintainable
inasmuch as the Impugned Order is merely interlocutory and
procedural in nature.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant disputes the above
submission and submits that as the application under Section 24 of the
HMA has been directed to be taken up only post the hearing of the
application Section 340 of the Cr. P.C. filed by the respondent, the
Impugned Order cannot be termed as interlocutory in nature.
5. We are unable to agree with the submission made by the
learned counsel for the appellant.
6. As noted hereinabove, the learned Family Court has simply
directed that the application under Section 340 of the Cr. P.C. filed by
the respondent shall be taken up before considering the other
applications. The said order is purely procedural in nature and falls
within the ambit and scope of the term ‘interlocutory’ as provided
under Section 19 of the Family Court Act. The appeal is, therefore, not
maintainable against the said order.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of, reserving liberty to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAT.APP.(F.C.) 137/2025 Page 2 of 3
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:10.04.2025
18:38:25
appellant to challenge the Impugned Order, if so advised, in
accordance with the law. All pending applications are also disposed
of.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
RENU BHATNAGAR, J
APRIL 8, 2025/Arya/DG
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAT.APP.(F.C.) 137/2025 Page 3 of 3
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:10.04.2025
18:38:25