Akshat Agarwal vs Pawni Gupta
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 31.08.2026
# CNR No. DLHC011089142025
+ CM(M) 131/2026 & CM APPL. 3554/2026 (Stay)
AKSHAT AGARWAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhishek Kumar Tiwari,
Mr. Tushar Bawa, Mr. Ankur
Shall and Mr. Uday Prakash,
Advs.
versus
PAWNI GUPTA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Mohit Tyagi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
% JUDGEMENT (Oral)
1. In view of Notification No. 85/G-4/Genl.-I/DHC dated
21.08.2026, whereby matters listed for 27.08.2026 were directed to be
taken up on 31.08.2026, the present matter is taken up for hearing
today.
1
2. The present Petition assails the Order dated 13.11.2025
passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, South-East, Saket
2
Courts, New Delhi , in HMA no. 1545 of 2022, whereby three
Applications preferred by the Petitioner, inter alia , an Application
under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of
3
Civil Procedure, 1908 came to be dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, submits that he
1
Impugned Order
2
Learned Trial Court
3
CPC
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
13:37:56
CM(M) 131/2026 Page 1 of 4
confines the challenge in the present Petition to one limited aspect of
the Impugned Order, namely, the rejection of the request pertaining to
the alleged payment of cash in excess of Rs.2,00,000/- by the family
of the Respondent to the Petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that, since an
allegation to the aforesaid effect has emerged during the proceedings,
4
the statutory provisions contained in the Income Tax Act, 1961 ,
particularly Section 269ST thereof, read with the Judgement of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Correspondence, RBANMS
5
Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar & Anr. , would
consequently stand attracted. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned
Trial Court was mandated to notify the Income Tax Department for
appropriate action in accordance with law.
5. Per contra , learned counsel for the Respondent submits that no
such transaction has been pleaded by the Petitioner in the pleadings
before the learned Trial Court. He further submits that reliance placed
by learned counsel for the Petitioner upon the cross-examination is
misconceived, particularly when the alleged transaction remains
nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion and has not, as yet,
been established by any evidence.
6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and, with
their able assistance, perused the relevant pleadings, the Impugned
Order and the statutory provisions as well as the Judgement relied
upon by learned counsel for the Petitioner.
7. A perusal of the pleadings placed before the learned Trial Court
makes it apparent that no specific plea or assertion with respect to the
4
IT Act
5
Civil Appeal No. 5200/2025 arising out of SLP(C) No. 13679/2022
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
13:37:56
CM(M) 131/2026 Page 2 of 4
alleged cash transaction has been set up therein. The issue sought to be
introduced by the Petitioner, therefore, does not emanate from any
foundational pleading forming part of the lis between the parties.
8. The learned Trial Court has, in the Impugned Order, also
considered the aforesaid aspect and found that no material or proof
had been placed on record to establish the alleged exchange of cash
between the two families. The learned Trial Court further noticed that
the substantive proceedings before it concern a Petition seeking
dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and that the proposed
exercise did not bear any discernible nexus with the reliefs sought in
those proceedings.
9. In these circumstances, the prayer seeking recall of a witness
under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, coupled with the proposed inquiry
into an alleged cash transaction which has neither been pleaded nor
substantiated by any material on record, cannot be said to disclose any
circumstance warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
10. It is equally significant that the mere elicitation of a suggestion
or an assertion during cross-examination cannot, by itself, be elevated
to the status of an established fact so as to trigger consequential
proceedings before another statutory authority. The Respondent would
necessarily be required to establish the factual basis of her case in
accordance with law during the course of trial. At the present stage,
therefore, there is no demonstrated factual foundation upon which the
proposed exercise sought by the Petitioner can meaningfully rest.
11. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is supervisory and is to be exercised sparingly,
where the order of the subordinate Court discloses a jurisdictional
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
13:37:56
CM(M) 131/2026 Page 3 of 4
error, manifest illegality, perversity or a failure to exercise jurisdiction
vested in it.
12. The present case discloses no such infirmity. The learned Trial
Court has considered the request made by the Petitioner and, upon
finding an absence of both a foundational pleading and supporting
material, declined to permit the proposed exercise. No ground for
supervisory interference is, therefore, made out.
13. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present Petition.
The Petition, along with pending application(s), if any, stands
dismissed.
14. Needless to state that this Court has expressed no opinion on the
merits of the issues raised and that the Petitioner is at liberty to take
such steps as are permissible in law.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
AUGUST 31, 2026/rk/DJ
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
13:37:56
CM(M) 131/2026 Page 4 of 4