CRL.M.C./7289/2026 of KANCHAN SRIVASTAV Vs ADITYA SHARMA on 28 September 2026

O R D E R

% 28.09.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), seeking setting aside of the judgment dated 20.09.2025 passed by the learned ASJ-03 West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, and expungement of prejudicial observations contained in the order dated 28.06.2025 passed by the learned Mahila Court.

3. The grievance of the petitioner arises from the order dated 28.06.2025 passed by the learned JMFC (Mahila Court), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, on the said date, while the learned Mahila Court was attempting to facilitate an amicable settlement between the parties, the proceedings culminated in an order recording certain observations which, are adverse and prejudicial to the petitioner. The learned Mahila Court vide order dated 28.06.2025, has recorded as under: “Present: Sh. Rishi Kapoor, Ld. Counsel for petitioner with petitioner. Sh. Rajat Shaw, Ld. Counsel for respondent. Respondent in person. Fresh vakalatnama filed on behalf of both parties. Same is taken on record. Let previous vakalatnama filed on behalf of both parties be withdrawn and a separate noting to this effect be made in the case file. The Court has tried to mediate between both the parties for settlement, however, the petitioner is asking for an exorbitant amount which is out of financial capacity of the respondent. Let the matter be proceeded further on merits. Respondent has still not complied with order dated 23.10.24 and

07.02.25. One last and final opportunity is given to the respondent to make compliance failing to which the right of respondent to argue on interim maintenance will be closed. Put up for arguments on interim relief application on 30.08.2025.”

5. The learned Mahila Court observed that the amount sought by the petitioner towards settlement was “exorbitant” and beyond the financial means of the respondent.

6. The learned Appellate Court, while considering the challenge to the said order, observed that the order merely recorded the proceedings which had taken place before the learned Mahila Court and certain observations concerning the failure of the parties to arrive at a settlement, and accordingly held that the same was not amenable to an appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

7. Though, there is no infirmity in the order of the ld. Appellate Court and the order passed by the learned Mahila Court is indeed not amenable to an appeal, however, this Court is of the view that, while a Court may endeavour to facilitate an amicable settlement between the parties, such an endeavour must remain neutral and should not result in the Court commenting upon the quantum of settlement sought by either party or the financial capacity of either party. In the present order, the observations made by the learned Mahila Court that “the petitioner is asking for an exorbitant amount which is out of financial capacity of the respondent.” was, therefore, unwarranted and ought not to have been made. The learned Mahila Court is expected to record only the factum of settlement or failure thereof, without expressing any opinion on the reasonableness of the terms proposed by either party.

8. The aforesaid observation shall, accordingly, not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the respective claims of the parties or their financial capacity.

9. It is also noted that the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, West, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, has already transferred the matter vide order dated 16.03.2026.

10. Nothing further survives in the present petition, accordingly, the present petition along with pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

11. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2026/prg/yt