FAMILY COURT VISIT

PSDA

Submitted by

Mahira Saraf

Enrolment no.-35617703821

Semester-3

Section-A

Vivekananda School of Law and Legal Studies

VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES

Pitampura, Delhi-110034

​2022

​
 REPORT ON FAMILY COURT VISIT

by Mahira Saraf

DATE OF COURT VISIT: 19th November 2022

TIME: 10:30 AM
NAME OF THE COURT: Saket District Court
NAME OF THE JUDGE: Ms. Shunali Gupta
COURT ROOM NO: 04

CASE NAME: ​1. Rajini Lochan vs Sanjay kumar Lochan

2. Ram Prasad vs. Inderpal
3. Sikha Nanda vs. Nikhil Nanda
4. Meggha Khetrapal vs. Rajat Kapoor
5. Pooja Sifohi @ Pooja Rajput vs Dheerender Singh Rajput

ITEM LIST NUMBER:

​Case number - 04
Case number -06
Case number -10
Case number -17
Case number -21

I went to the Saket District Court in New Delhi to gather information for a report on a family
court hearing that was required as a Professional Skill Development Activity by the college. At 10:25
am, I arrived at the court. I then went to the New Court Building and joined courtroom 04 on the
fourth floor. The audience, which included the general public and a number of lawyers, waited for the
appointed judge to enter the courtroom for the first few minutes. The court's proceedings began at
10:30 am, with Ms. Shunali Gupta, Judge, Family Court 02, presiding (South). The item list number
was used to determine the order of calling the petitioners and the respondent.

The first item to be present in the court was item number 4, which was Rajini Lochan vs.
Sanjay Kumar Lochan (online no.-4/HMA/1508/22). This case has been ongoing since 2019, and
on October 15, 2022, the first motion was already granted. The second motion of application made by
the petitioner, Rajini Lochan's lawyer Sarin Grover, was approved today. The following date was set
as the new appearance date in court.

The next item that appeared before the court was Ram Prasad vs. Inderpal (item no- 6, online
no.-6/M/373/22). Ram Prasad himself argued that he had adopted a son with his second wife and was
paying maintenance to the first wife as well, but that he was now jobless and helpless and was not
earning enough to do so. The judge asked him to send a notice to the other party for the same and
gave him a new date- 17th March 2023 for his appearance in court.

The husband in the third case, Shikha Nanda vs. Nikhil Nanda (item no. 10, online no.
10HMA/22/425), abandoned his wife and their daughter. Along with this, he hasn't been providing
interim maintenance to the wife and child since he left, which makes it difficult for them to go about
their daily lives. The wife, who is also the child's mother, is unable to pay the child's school fees,
which is about 1.5 lakh per month, so she has to seek financial assistance from her ailing father. In
Vietnam, a divorce petition had been filed. The respondent, Nikhil Nanda, is in a very good position
and is employed as the CEO of a company in Singapore with a monthly salary of Rs.5 lakh or more,
according to Mr. Jayant Goyal, the petitioner's lawyer. The petitioner is unknown; however, she spoke
with the company sometime around August 17, 2022, and asked them to send her a salary statement.
They told her that they couldn't send the statement until she filed a legal statement or application to
obtain it, and until then, they wouldn't be able to produce it in court. The wife claimed that the
respondent's parents, i.e., Nikhil's Parents, were aware of all the facts and appeared in the prior court
proceedings. However, the petitioner's advocate wanted that an application is sent to the respondent's
parents to pressure him to appear before the court while pretending that they are unaware of anything.
The respondent's husband's most recent bank statement for fixing the maintenance was thus ordered
by the court, and 8 February 2023 was given as the next hearing date.

The Petitioner in the fourth case, Meggha Khetrapal vs. Rajat Kapoor (item no. 17, online
no. 17HMA/198/21) requested interim maintenance, but it was denied on November 5, 2022. Rajat
Kapoor, the respondent, was asked to submit a response by the fourth of November, 2022, in
accordance with section 7 (11)-146 of the CrPC application. He failed to do so. According to order
7/11, the court requested a response from the petitioner regarding his or her territorial jurisdiction. The
petitioner requested more time, and the court set the next hearing date for February 8th. The
petitioners then requested an earlier hearing date, and the judge extended the new dates to February
10th.

In the fifth case, Pooja Sifohi @ Pooja Rajput vs. Dheerender Singh Rajput (item 21;
online no. 21HMA/1691/21), the following facts are stated: - The facts of the case are as follows:
neither party wanted to remain married, the wife filed for divorce in Nagaland on the grounds of
cruelty, and at that time, the respondent was ordered to pay interim maintenance to the tune of one
lakh rupees per month, which was reduced by the High Court on August 29, 2022, at a hearing, to
40,000 rupees per month, as directed by a court application. The petition for divorce was filed in
Nagaland by the respondent, and on November 8th, 2022, the high court referred the case to be
transferred to Delhi.

The petitioner side in the current proceeding claimed that the respondent's Income Tax Return (ITR),
which was filed, was only for two years, not three. Additionally, they claimed that the respondent was
attempting to use his connections in politics to exert political pressure on the petitioner.
The respondent's lawyer pleaded with the court to grant them a period of 7–10 days for making the
payment and explained that the delay in paying maintenance to the wife, or the petitioner, was due to
the financial difficulties the respondent was experiencing. He is still attempting to collect money for
this through all available channels. The petitioner's lawyer responded by claiming that funds
previously transferred to the petitioner's account were not deposited during the first week of each
month.

There was a postponement there as well. The respondent explained that he was unable to transfer the
payment on the first of the month because he used to get paid on the 10th of each month. As a result,
he was unable to pay her on time and pleaded for an extension of 7 to 10 days to pay her each month.
The honourable judge agreed to his request and permitted him to pay the wife's maintenance on the
10th of each month via online payment (HDFC Bank a/c). However, the court ordered that both
parties submit an updated bank statement by October 31. The council argued that the respondent had
been ordered by the court to pay the maintenance for the previous two months, October and
November, through online payment within a week or ten days, but had been unable to do so. Finally,
the respondent party disclosed that the petitioner's brother-in-law attempted to reach a settlement of 41
lakhs through an email to him prior to filing for divorce, to which the petitioner party rejected and
requested custody of "Stri- Dhan." In response, the respondent party asked them to pick it up from the
police station as the same is kept there for evidence purposes. The next date of hearing was given on
30th November 2022, the respondent pleaded that he won’t be able to present himself on the given
next date and as a result judge exempted him to appear, but asked the petitioner to be present.
This was the last case mentioned in the Cause list dated 19/11/2022.