ANITA SHARMA Vs. SHIV KUMAR SHARMA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has impugned the order dated 02.03.2016 and 01.05.2017 passed by the Family Court.

(2.) The contention of the appellant is that while passing the order dated 01.05.2017, the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the application for setting aside the order dated 02.03.2016 was moved immediately after receiving the entire set of petition by the learned counsel for the appellant and hence there was no delay in filing the application for setting aside the said order, also that the appellant, the wife, does not have means to pay the cost of Rs. 3000/- imposed upon her for filing the written statement as she has all along been dependent upon the respondent. Due to her inability to engage a counsel, she had been appearing in person in the Court. She could get a lawyer through Delhi Legal Services Aid only in November 2016. It is further argued that the impugned order is based on the premise that the appellant had been taking adjournments while it was the respondent who had been seeking multiple adjournments. It is argued that impugned orders are against interest of justice and are harsh.

(3.) The brief mention of the proceedings before this Court would be relevant for disposal of the appeal. This Court vide order dated 25.07.2017, had directed the appellant to send a written intimation to the respondent through his counsel appearing before the learned Family Court and consequent to that, the counsel for the respondent had also attended this Court. This Court also made an attempt for amicable settlement between the parties and send the matter to the Mediation Centre on the request of the parties. However, the parties failed to settle the matter and thereafter the arguments have been heard of learned counsels appearing for the parties in the matter.