$~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010253072026 + CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 303/2026 & CRL.M.A. 17433/2026 SHAIKH MOHAMMAD SAYEED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Girish K. Sharma, Advocate. versus RESHMA BAHADUR .....Respondent Through: Respondent is present in person. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMARKAURAV O R D E R % 07.08.2026 1. Mr. Girish K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that he has been authorised by Mr. Saurabh Gupta, who is holding vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner to argue this matter. 2. An application under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC came to be rejected by the Family Court. The findings captured in paragraph no. 5 of the said order are extracted as under: “5. Perusal of the record shows that the respondent was duly served in maintenance petition no. 38/22 on 27.07.2022. Thereafter, repeatedly adjournments are being sought by respondent to file reply to the petition alongwith affidavit of disclosure of Assets and Liabilities. Due to regular noncompliance of orders of the court, the respondent was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 25.04.2023. The respondent thereafter appeared before the court for the first time with his counsel on 25.04.2024, that is after one year of being proceeded ex-parte. Thereafter, time was sought by him for trying mediation and counseling proceedings between the parties. However, in the meanwhile no application was filed by the respondent for setting aside This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/08/2026 at 11:28:38 the ex-parte order. It was only after the expiry of more than two years that is on 30.08.2025 that an application was filed for setting aside the ex-parte order. The said application is not accompanied with any application seeking condonation of delay. Even otherwise, the only ground taken by respondent for setting aside the ex-parte order is that he was not duly informed by his previous counsel regarding the court proceedings. However, he has not filed any complaint against his previous counsel. Further, no explanation has been furnished by him as to why he did not file the application for setting aside the ex-parte order on 25.04.2024 itself i.e. first time that he came to know about the ex-parte order. It is clearly a case of negligence on behalf of respondent in pursuing the present petition diligently and also in paying any maintenance to the petitioner.” 3. It is thus seen that the notice was served on the petitioner on 27.07.2022, even thereafter the petitioner on multiple dates had appeared before the concerned Court. The petitioner, if had lost the track of the matter or has not been apprised regarding the subsequent dates by the counsel, cannot be the reason to set aside the impugned order proceeding ex- parte against the petitioner. Once the notice was served, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have appeared on all subsequent dates. Repeated notice on the maintenance petition is not warranted. 4. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for and the petition is hereby dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 7, 2026 tr This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/08/2026 at 11:28:38