The court affirmed that when parties arrive at a settlement and the appellant indicates disinterest in prosecuting the appeal, an appeal against an interlocutory matrimonial order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, may be dismissed as not pressed. This judgment upholds existing procedural practice and has binding effect for all subordinate courts within jurisdiction, specifically in family law contexts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FA/19/2020 of ANIL DUTT Vs RANI |
| CNR | UKHC010014602020 |
| Date of Registration | 23-01-2020 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Maithani, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Bench | Division Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Maithani, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Uttarakhand |
| Type of Law | Matrimonial / Procedural |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that when parties to a matrimonial dispute arrive at a settlement and the appellant does not wish to prosecute the appeal further, the appeal may be dismissed as not pressed. The discretion is available particularly for appeals under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The order thus recognizes and facilitates amicable settlement in matrimonial litigation, reinforcing judicial efficiency. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appeal was against an order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but, on the date of hearing, the appellant’s counsel stated that the parties had settled and begun living separately, and did not wish to pursue the appeal. The court recorded this and dismissed the appeal as not pressed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and forums deciding matrimonial appeals and interlocutory orders |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Affirms the court’s discretion to dismiss matrimonial appeals as not pressed where a settlement has been reached between parties.
- Demonstrates judicial recognition of amicable settlement and underlines the importance of party autonomy in continuing or withdrawing matrimonial proceedings.
- Lawyers should advise clients in family disputes that appeals against interim orders may be concluded efficiently if parties settle.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The bench began by noting the nature of the appeal—against an order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (regarding interim maintenance and related reliefs).
- At the outset, counsel for the appellant brought to the court’s notice that parties had settled their dispute and begun living separately, asking that the appeal need not be pressed.
- The court accepted the representation of appellant’s counsel on record and exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal as not pressed.
- By doing so, the court facilitated the effect of privately negotiated settlement, thereby saving judicial time and promoting finality in matrimonial litigation.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant:
- Through counsel, informed the court that parties have arrived at a settlement.
- Stated that the appellant does not wish to proceed with the appeal.
Respondent:
- No submissions recorded in the extract provided.
Factual Background
The appeal arose from an order made under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. On the date of hearing, the appellant’s counsel stated that the parties had settled their disputes and begun to live separately, leading the appellant to not wish to continue with the appeal. The court, having recorded these statements, dismissed the appeal as not pressed.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment pertained to Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which deals with maintenance pendente lite (interim maintenance) and expenses of proceedings. The court did not interpret the scope or content of Section 24 substantively, but demonstrated that appeals against such interlocutory orders may be withdrawn upon settlement.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No novel procedural directions or innovations specified in the judgment. The procedure followed—allowing withdrawal and dismissal as not pressed on the basis of settlement—is in line with established practice.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court followed established judicial discretion and procedure regarding withdrawal/dismissal of appeals on settlement in family law matters.