As per case facts, a marital dispute involving divorce proceedings and maintenance claims led to multiple appeals. The husband, after giving a statement to withdraw his divorce petition before the ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
110
Rishi Kumar Sharma
Smt. Lata @ Hem Lata
110-2
Hem Lata Sharma
Rishi Kumar Sharma and others
110-3
Hem Lata Sharma
Rishi Kumar Sharma and others
CORAM:
Present:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Rishi Kumar Sharma
Versus
Smt. Lata @ Hem Lata
Hem Lata Sharma
Versus
Rishi Kumar Sharma and others
Hem Lata Sharma
Versus
Rishi Kumar Sharma and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Hem Lata Sharma as appellant
(in FAO-1446-2023 and in TA
and as respondent (in FAO-3251
Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate
for the appellant (in FAO-3251
Dr. Rau P.S.Girwar, Advocate and
Ms. Archana Arora Rau, Advocate,
Ms. K.T.Rau, Advocate and
Mr. Ashish Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.1 (in FAO
*****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-3251-2021
Reserved on: 24.04.2025
Pronounced on: 16.05.2025
...Appellant
Versus
...Respondent
FAO-1446-2023
...Appellant
Versus
...Respondents
TA-184-2023
...Applicant
Versus
...Respondents
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
as appellant/applicant in person
in TA-184-2023)
3251-2021).
Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate
3251-2021).
Dr. Rau P.S.Girwar, Advocate and
Ms. Archana Arora Rau, Advocate,
Advocate
or respondent No.1 (in FAO-1446-2023).
...Appellant
...Respondent
...Appellant
...Respondents
Applicant
...Respondents
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
VIKAS SURI
1.
FAO-3251
Lata”; FAO
Sharma and others
Rishi Kumar Sharma and others
matrimonial disc
with the consent of the parties are bein
common judgment.
2.
all the three cases but
FAO-3251
3.
Courts Act, 1984 (for short, the ‘Act of 1984’)
the order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the
Court, Sirsa
permission to withdr
Adalat on 10.04.2021, has been dismissed.
4.
appellant and respondent was solemnized on 08.12.2010 and no child has
been born from the said wedlock
under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of the
marriage by a decree of divorce, on 23.12.2011. In the said petition, an
parte decree of divorce was passed by the learned Additional District
-2-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
VIKAS SURI, J.
Through this common judgment, we propose to dispose of
3251-2021 titled as “Rishi Kumar Sharma vs.
FAO-1446-2023 titled as “Hem Lata Sharma vs.
Sharma and others”; and TA-184-2023
Rishi Kumar Sharma and others”. All the three cases are arising from
matrimonial discord between the appellant
with the consent of the parties are being heard together and decided by a
common judgment.
The facts in brief, for convenience,
all the three cases but each case is being discussed
3251-2021
This appeal has been preferred under Section 19 of
Courts Act, 1984 (for short, the ‘Act of 1984’)
order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the
Court, Sirsa whereby an application filed by the
permission to withdraw his statement suffered before the National Lok
Adalat on 10.04.2021, has been dismissed.
Briefly stated, sans unnecessary details, marriage of the
appellant and respondent was solemnized on 08.12.2010 and no child has
been born from the said wedlock. The appellant
under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of the
marriage by a decree of divorce, on 23.12.2011. In the said petition, an
decree of divorce was passed by the learned Additional District
Through this common judgment, we propose to dispose of
Rishi Kumar Sharma vs. Smt. Lata @ Hem
“Hem Lata Sharma vs. Rishi Kumar
2023 titled as “Hem Lata Sharma vs.
. All the three cases are arising from
the appellant-husband and respondent-wife and
g heard together and decided by a
for convenience, have been marshalled from
being discussed individually.
This appeal has been preferred under Section 19 of the Family
Courts Act, 1984 (for short, the ‘Act of 1984’) by the husband, aggrieved by
order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family
whereby an application filed by the appellant-husband seeking
aw his statement suffered before the National Lok
Adalat on 10.04.2021, has been dismissed.
Briefly stated, sans unnecessary details, marriage of the
appellant and respondent was solemnized on 08.12.2010 and no child has
. The appellant-husband filed a petition
under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of the
marriage by a decree of divorce, on 23.12.2011. In the said petition, an
decree of divorce was passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
Through this common judgment, we propose to dispose of
Smt. Lata @ Hem
Kumar
Hem Lata Sharma vs.
. All the three cases are arising from
wife and
g heard together and decided by a
lled from
the Family
, aggrieved by
ipal Judge, Family
husband seeking
aw his statement suffered before the National Lok
Briefly stated, sans unnecessary details, marriage of the
appellant and respondent was solemnized on 08.12.2010 and no child has
husband filed a petition
under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of the
marriage by a decree of divorce, on 23.12.2011. In the said petition, an ex-
Judge,
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
Sirsa, vide judgment and decree dated 08.01.2013 (Annexure P
respondent
setting aside the
ex-parte judgment and decree dated 08
4.1
was effected
record as Ex.C
application seeking to withdraw her
proceedings/judgment and decree. A copy of the
has not been placed on record before this Court by either of the parties. In
view of the statement suffered by the applicant
Ex.C-1 arrived at between the parties, the former application dated
08.10.2013 was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn
10.04.2018 (Annexure P
4.2
Section 12 of t
(for short, the ‘Act of 2005’) on 19.09.2013, along with an application under
Section 23
relief was allowed vide order dated 04.10.2017 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bathinda, and the husband (appellant herein)
was directed to pay Rs.20,000/
from the date of the application. It was further ordered that the entire arrears
of maintenance be paid by 15.11.2017, i.e., the then next date of hearing in
the aforesaid case.
-3-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
Sirsa, vide judgment and decree dated 08.01.2013 (Annexure P
respondent-wife moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for
setting aside the ex-parte proceeding order dated 12.11.2012 and the final
judgment and decree dated 08.01.2013.
During the pendency of the said proceedings, a compromise
effected between the appellant and the respondent, which was taken on
record as Ex.C-1. Owing to the compromise, the respondent moved another
application seeking to withdraw her application for setting aside the
proceedings/judgment and decree. A copy of the
has not been placed on record before this Court by either of the parties. In
view of the statement suffered by the applicant
1 arrived at between the parties, the former application dated
08.10.2013 was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn
10.04.2018 (Annexure P-4).
Earlier thereto, the respondent
Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
(for short, the ‘Act of 2005’) on 19.09.2013, along with an application under
Section 23 of the ibid Act, for interim relief. The said application for interim
relief was allowed vide order dated 04.10.2017 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bathinda, and the husband (appellant herein)
was directed to pay Rs.20,000/- per month to the wife fo
from the date of the application. It was further ordered that the entire arrears
of maintenance be paid by 15.11.2017, i.e., the then next date of hearing in
the aforesaid case.
Sirsa, vide judgment and decree dated 08.01.2013 (Annexure P-1). The
wife moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for
proceeding order dated 12.11.2012 and the final
.01.2013.
During the pendency of the said proceedings, a compromise
between the appellant and the respondent, which was taken on
1. Owing to the compromise, the respondent moved another
application for setting aside the ex-parte
proceedings/judgment and decree. A copy of the supra compromise Ex.C
has not been placed on record before this Court by either of the parties. In
view of the statement suffered by the applicant-wife and the compromise
1 arrived at between the parties, the former application dated
08.10.2013 was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
Earlier thereto, the respondent-wife had filed a complaint under
he Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
(for short, the ‘Act of 2005’) on 19.09.2013, along with an application under
for interim relief. The said application for interim
relief was allowed vide order dated 04.10.2017 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bathinda, and the husband (appellant herein)
per month to the wife for her maintenance
from the date of the application. It was further ordered that the entire arrears
of maintenance be paid by 15.11.2017, i.e., the then next date of hearing in
1). The
wife moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for
proceeding order dated 12.11.2012 and the final
During the pendency of the said proceedings, a compromise
between the appellant and the respondent, which was taken on
1. Owing to the compromise, the respondent moved another
parte
compromise Ex.C-1
has not been placed on record before this Court by either of the parties. In
romise
1 arrived at between the parties, the former application dated
vide order dated
wife had filed a complaint under
he Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
(for short, the ‘Act of 2005’) on 19.09.2013, along with an application under
for interim relief. The said application for interim
relief was allowed vide order dated 04.10.2017 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bathinda, and the husband (appellant herein)
r her maintenance
from the date of the application. It was further ordered that the entire arrears
of maintenance be paid by 15.11.2017, i.e., the then next date of hearing in
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
4.3
of the Code of Criminal Procedure
wherein the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda,
09.09.2016,
month from the date of fili
order, the appellant
of Session,
assigned
wife, the supra criminal revision
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda.
4.4
application for restoration of the earlier application referre
Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the order dated 12.11.2012, whereby
she was proceeded against
dated 08.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa. It is
averred in the
the order dated 10.04.2018, has refused to keep and maintain the respondent
wife and has proclaimed of having played fraud upon her for reconciliation,
to get her
vide order dated 03.06.2019 (Annexure P
Judge, Family Court, Sirsa, and the matter was kept for arguments
lunch break
Court, by the appellant
Kumar Sharma vs. Hemlata Sharma”
-4-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
The respondent-wife had filed an application under Sec
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
wherein the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda,
09.09.2016, awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/
month from the date of filing of the said application. Aggrieved by the said
order, the appellant-husband preferred a criminal revision
of Session, bearing No.28 of 24.05.2017, which
assigned CRN No. CRR-138/2017. After
the supra criminal revision was dismissed vide order dated 24.05.2017
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda.
Thereafter, on 17.04.2018, the respondent
application for restoration of the earlier application referre
Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the order dated 12.11.2012, whereby
she was proceeded against ex-parte and the
dated 08.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa. It is
averred in the said application that the appellant
the order dated 10.04.2018, has refused to keep and maintain the respondent
wife and has proclaimed of having played fraud upon her for reconciliation,
to get her main application withdrawn. Th
vide order dated 03.06.2019 (Annexure P
Judge, Family Court, Sirsa, and the matter was kept for arguments
lunch break, on the same day. The said order was challenged before this
by the appellant-husband, by way of CR
Kumar Sharma vs. Hemlata Sharma”, and vide order dated 16.08.2019
wife had filed an application under Section 125
, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C) on 04.01.2016
wherein the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, vide order dated
awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/-
ng of the said application. Aggrieved by the said
husband preferred a criminal revision before the Court
bearing No.28 of 24.05.2017, which on being registered was
After due contest by the respondent
was dismissed vide order dated 24.05.2017
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda.
Thereafter, on 17.04.2018, the respondent-wife moved an
application for restoration of the earlier application referred to above under
Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the order dated 12.11.2012, whereby
and the ex-parte judgment and decree
dated 08.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa. It is
said application that the appellant-husband, after passing of
the order dated 10.04.2018, has refused to keep and maintain the respondent
wife and has proclaimed of having played fraud upon her for reconciliation,
application withdrawn. The latter application was allowed
vide order dated 03.06.2019 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Sirsa, and the matter was kept for arguments, post
on the same day. The said order was challenged before this
by way of CR-4695-2019 titled as “Rishi
, and vide order dated 16.08.2019
tion 125
on 04.01.2016,
vide order dated
per
ng of the said application. Aggrieved by the said
before the Court
on being registered was
spondent-
was dismissed vide order dated 24.05.2017
wife moved an
d to above under
Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the order dated 12.11.2012, whereby
judgment and decree
dated 08.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa. It is
husband, after passing of
the order dated 10.04.2018, has refused to keep and maintain the respondent-
wife and has proclaimed of having played fraud upon her for reconciliation,
application was allowed
5) passed by the learned Principal
post
on the same day. The said order was challenged before this
“Rishi
, and vide order dated 16.08.2019
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
(Annexure P
to adjourn the case beyond the date fixed in the said
supra petition, at the asking of the appellant
was permitted
CR-4695-
4.5
482 Cr.P.C. for quashing
as well as the
Magistrate First Class, Bathinda,
whereby the appellant was directed to pay interim maintenance of
Rs.20,000/
Section 23 of
40708-2018.
4.6
withdrawn
the instance of the respondent
a sum of Rs.20,000/
amount that was awarded as interim maintenance
Court. The parties have not pleaded or placed any material on record to
show that the final
was modified
4.7
Cr.P.C. and under Section 2
to the respondent
-5-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
(Annexure P-6), notice of motion was issued while directing the trial Court
to adjourn the case beyond the date fixed in the said
supra petition, at the asking of the appellant
was permitted be to withdrawn and vide order dated 23.02.2023,
-2019 was dismissed as withdrawn.
The appellant-husband had also filed a petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 2005
as well as the order dated 04.10.2017 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Bathinda, and subsequent proceedings thereto,
whereby the appellant was directed to pay interim maintenance of
Rs.20,000/- per month to the respondent
Section 23 of the Act of 2005, which came to be registered as CRM
2018.
On 23.02.2023, the said petition was also dismissed as
withdrawn. The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance
the instance of the respondent-wife, culminated into the
a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month vide order dated
amount that was awarded as interim maintenance
Court. The parties have not pleaded or placed any material on record to
show that the final order dated 07.09.2018,
was modified or interfered with, by any superior Court.
On account of the maintenance granted under Section 125
Cr.P.C. and under Section 23 of the Act of 2005,
the respondent-wife, the appellant-husband is in arrears of maintenance.
6), notice of motion was issued while directing the trial Court
to adjourn the case beyond the date fixed in the said revision petition. The
supra petition, at the asking of the appellant-husband (petitioner therein)
and vide order dated 23.02.2023,
19 was dismissed as withdrawn.
husband had also filed a petition under Section
the complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 2005
7 passed by the learned Judicial
and subsequent proceedings thereto,
whereby the appellant was directed to pay interim maintenance of
per month to the respondent-wife under the provisions of
ct of 2005, which came to be registered as CRM-
he said petition was also dismissed as
. The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance
culminated into the wife being awarded
per month vide order dated 07.09.2018, i.e., the same
amount that was awarded as interim maintenance and was upheld by this
Court. The parties have not pleaded or placed any material on record to
order dated 07.09.2018, passed on the supra applicati
by any superior Court.
On account of the maintenance granted under Section 125
of the Act of 2005, not having been paid in full
husband is in arrears of maintenance.
6), notice of motion was issued while directing the trial Court
The
husband (petitioner therein),
and vide order dated 23.02.2023,
husband had also filed a petition under Section
the complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 2005
7 passed by the learned Judicial
and subsequent proceedings thereto,
whereby the appellant was directed to pay interim maintenance of
wife under the provisions of
-M-
he said petition was also dismissed as
. The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, at
wife being awarded
i.e., the same
upheld by this
Court. The parties have not pleaded or placed any material on record to
passed on the supra application,
On account of the maintenance granted under Section 125
not having been paid in full
husband is in arrears of maintenance.
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
The respondent
the learned Family Court
outstanding towards maintenance allowance
account of arrears of rent.
4.8
dated 08.10.2013 seeking setting aside the
more than 80 hearings had taken place till 10.04.2021.
pleaded that she
expenditure
application for compensation to that effect. In order to look into the said
aspect, the matter
statement of the appellant
withdraw his main petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
4.9
his statement suffered before the National Lok Adalat on 10.04.2021
emphatically contested by the respondent
submissions made by the parties
application was dismissed
Principal Judge, Family Court, Sirsa
of as settled in the National Lok Adalat on 10.04.2021 and the main petition
stood dismissed as withdrawn as per the statement
5.
appellant-
6.
-6-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
The respondent-wife through her affidavit
the learned Family Court has averred that a sum of Rs.
outstanding towards maintenance allowance
account of arrears of rent.
It is noteworthy that since
08.10.2013 seeking setting aside the
more than 80 hearings had taken place till 10.04.2021.
pleaded that she had a legitimate expectation of reimbursement of huge
expenditure incurred by her for the numerous visits and, thus, made an
application for compensation to that effect. In order to look into the said
aspect, the matter was deferred but after
statement of the appellant-husband, on oath,
withdraw his main petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The application filed by the appellant
his statement suffered before the National Lok Adalat on 10.04.2021
emphatically contested by the respondent
submissions made by the parties and perusing the record
application was dismissed vide order dated
Principal Judge, Family Court, Sirsa. Accordingly, the matter was disposed
as settled in the National Lok Adalat on 10.04.2021 and the main petition
stood dismissed as withdrawn as per the statement
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated
-husband has assailed the same through
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as the award
through her affidavit submitted on 10.04.2021 before
has averred that a sum of Rs.10,49,642/-
outstanding towards maintenance allowance, besides Rs.8,23,000/-
that since the institution of the application
08.10.2013 seeking setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree,
more than 80 hearings had taken place till 10.04.2021. The respondent-wife
legitimate expectation of reimbursement of huge
numerous visits and, thus, made an
application for compensation to that effect. In order to look into the said
after recording the voluntary univocal
, on oath, thereby recording his prayer
withdraw his main petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The application filed by the appellant-husband for withdrawing
his statement suffered before the National Lok Adalat on 10.04.2021, was
emphatically contested by the respondent-wife. After considering the
and perusing the record, the supra
order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the learned
Accordingly, the matter was disposed
as settled in the National Lok Adalat on 10.04.2021 and the main petition
stood dismissed as withdrawn as per the statement of the appellant-husband.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 17.09.2021, the
the same through the instant appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as the award
before
- is
on
of the application
judgment and decree,
wife
legitimate expectation of reimbursement of huge
numerous visits and, thus, made an
application for compensation to that effect. In order to look into the said
the voluntary univocal
recording his prayer to
for withdrawing
was
considering the
, the supra
passed by the learned
Accordingly, the matter was disposed
as settled in the National Lok Adalat on 10.04.2021 and the main petition
husband.
17.09.2021, the
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as the award
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
by the National Lok Adalat was not passed o
husband ought to have been permitted to withdraw the statement suffered by
him. Result of not passing the award on the day of recording the statement
would be that the matter was no longer before the National Lok Adalat. It is
further argued that the appellant had suffered the aforesaid statement,
regarding withdrawal of the main divorce petition, in haste and without fully
understanding the consequences arising therefrom. It is further submitted
that the appellant
many years and is on medication for the said disease and remains disturbed
owing to numerous litigations between the parties in various courts.
7.
defended the impugned order and submits that the appellant
be permitted in law to resile from the statement made on oath, of his own
volition, before the National Lok Adalat. The grounds urged in her reply
dated 09.07.2021 to the applicatio
suffered before the National Lok Adalat, have been reiterated.
8.
the respondent
9.
08.12.2010
have been in litigation since
marriage. A perusal of the record would show that some compromise ca
to be effected between the parties in the proceedings pertaining to the
application filed by the respondent
-7-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
by the National Lok Adalat was not passed o
husband ought to have been permitted to withdraw the statement suffered by
him. Result of not passing the award on the day of recording the statement
would be that the matter was no longer before the National Lok Adalat. It is
further argued that the appellant had suffered the aforesaid statement,
regarding withdrawal of the main divorce petition, in haste and without fully
understanding the consequences arising therefrom. It is further submitted
that the appellant-husband is a chronic patient of hypertension for the last
many years and is on medication for the said disease and remains disturbed
owing to numerous litigations between the parties in various courts.
The respondent-wife has emphatically opposed the appeal and
defended the impugned order and submits that the appellant
be permitted in law to resile from the statement made on oath, of his own
volition, before the National Lok Adalat. The grounds urged in her reply
dated 09.07.2021 to the application seeking withdrawal of the statement
suffered before the National Lok Adalat, have been reiterated.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well a
the respondent-wife in person and perused the record.
It is not disputed that marriage of the parties was solemnized on
08.12.2010 and no child has been born from the said wedlock. The parties
have been in litigation since December, 2011
. A perusal of the record would show that some compromise ca
to be effected between the parties in the proceedings pertaining to the
application filed by the respondent-wife under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for
by the National Lok Adalat was not passed on 10.04.2021, the appellant
husband ought to have been permitted to withdraw the statement suffered by
him. Result of not passing the award on the day of recording the statement
would be that the matter was no longer before the National Lok Adalat. It is
further argued that the appellant had suffered the aforesaid statement,
regarding withdrawal of the main divorce petition, in haste and without fully
understanding the consequences arising therefrom. It is further submitted
chronic patient of hypertension for the last
many years and is on medication for the said disease and remains disturbed
owing to numerous litigations between the parties in various courts.
wife has emphatically opposed the appeal and
defended the impugned order and submits that the appellant-husband cannot
be permitted in law to resile from the statement made on oath, of his own
volition, before the National Lok Adalat. The grounds urged in her reply
n seeking withdrawal of the statement
suffered before the National Lok Adalat, have been reiterated.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well a
wife in person and perused the record.
ge of the parties was solemnized on
and no child has been born from the said wedlock. The parties
2011, that is, just one year after the
. A perusal of the record would show that some compromise ca
to be effected between the parties in the proceedings pertaining to the
wife under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for
n 10.04.2021, the appellant-
husband ought to have been permitted to withdraw the statement suffered by
him. Result of not passing the award on the day of recording the statement
would be that the matter was no longer before the National Lok Adalat. It is
further argued that the appellant had suffered the aforesaid statement,
regarding withdrawal of the main divorce petition, in haste and without fully
understanding the consequences arising therefrom. It is further submitted
chronic patient of hypertension for the last
many years and is on medication for the said disease and remains disturbed
wife has emphatically opposed the appeal and
husband cannot
be permitted in law to resile from the statement made on oath, of his own
volition, before the National Lok Adalat. The grounds urged in her reply
n seeking withdrawal of the statement
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as
ge of the parties was solemnized on
and no child has been born from the said wedlock. The parties
after the
. A perusal of the record would show that some compromise came
to be effected between the parties in the proceedings pertaining to the
wife under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
setting aside the
evident that the parties had been conte
However, as alleged by the respondent
from his commitment
earlier application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Till said
five years had
then multiple litigation
stages, between the parties. A perusal of the record would show that the
appellant-
by the Translation Branch of this Court from Hindi to English)
National Lok Adalat,
Family Court, Sir
further reveals that the said statement was
after having read the same, accepted it to be correct, which was in the
presence of his counsel, who identified
-8-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated
evident that the parties had been contemplating
, as alleged by the respondent-wife, the appellant
his commitment and hence, she filed an application for restoring her
earlier application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Till said
years had elapsed since the ex parte
multiple litigations were pending before
between the parties. A perusal of the record would show that the
-husband suffered the hereinafter extracted statement
by the Translation Branch of this Court from Hindi to English)
National Lok Adalat, being presided over
Family Court, Sirsa, which came to be recorded
reveals that the said statement was
after having read the same, accepted it to be correct, which was in the
presence of his counsel, who identified the appellant
“Statement of Rishi Kumar s/o late Piare Lal, aged 57 years, r/o
#624, Gali No.10, Aggarsain Clony, Sirsa.
It is stated that I have made decision through the National Lok
Adalat that I withdraw my main petition
HMA. After withdrawal, it may be filed.
RO&AC
Sd/- Rishi Kumar
(In English)
Identified by
Sd/-
(in English)
10/4/21”
judgment and decree dated 08.01.2013. It is
mplating of amicably settling the
wife, the appellant-husband resiled
and hence, she filed an application for restoring her
earlier application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Till said point in time, nearly
ex parte divorce had been granted and
were pending before different Forums, at different
between the parties. A perusal of the record would show that the
uffered the hereinafter extracted statement (as translated
by the Translation Branch of this Court from Hindi to English) before the
being presided over by the learned Principal Judge,
which came to be recorded on 10.04.2021. The record
reveals that the said statement was made on oath and the appellant
after having read the same, accepted it to be correct, which was in the
the appellant-husband.
“Statement of Rishi Kumar s/o late Piare Lal, aged 57 years, r/o
#624, Gali No.10, Aggarsain Clony, Sirsa.
On S.A.
It is stated that I have made decision through the National Lok
Adalat that I withdraw my main petition under Section 13 of the
ithdrawal, it may be filed.
Sd/-
(Jasbir Singh Kundu)
Principal Judge, Family Court
Sirsa
08.01.2013. It is
of amicably settling the lis.
resiled
and hence, she filed an application for restoring her
, nearly
and by
, at different
between the parties. A perusal of the record would show that the
(as translated
before the
by the learned Principal Judge,
. The record
made on oath and the appellant
after having read the same, accepted it to be correct, which was in the
“Statement of Rishi Kumar s/o late Piare Lal, aged 57 years, r/o
It is stated that I have made decision through the National Lok
under Section 13 of the
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
10.
to sue the appellant
18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for recovery of maintenance
allowance/permanent alimony
period of ten
sum of Rs.36,00,000/
Rs.8,69,512/
Excise and Taxation Officer,
promoted as Commissioner and due to retire from serv
months. The relief of permanent injunction was also sought restraining the
official respondents
husband,
before payment of the aforesaid claimed amount and arrears of maintenance,
which were claimed to be in the sum of Rs.
husband was represented in the supra suit throug
11.
a statement before the National Lok Adalat on
application seeking to withdraw from the said statement was instituted on
07.06.2021. It is notable that
23.04.2021 also instituted a
adoption deed
an ex parte
granted vide order dated
Family Court, Bathinda.
-9-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
That on 18.09.2020, the respondent
to sue the appellant-husband, as forma pa
18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for recovery of maintenance
allowance/permanent alimony at the rate of Rs.30,000/
period of ten years and for creating the charge of the aforesaid amount in the
sum of Rs.36,00,000/- along with the amount of arrears of maintenance of
Rs.8,69,512/- on the service benefits of
Excise and Taxation Officer, Rampura Phul,
promoted as Commissioner and due to retire from serv
The relief of permanent injunction was also sought restraining the
official respondents, i.e., the employer and department of the respondent
from releasing the service benefits/retiral benefits
before payment of the aforesaid claimed amount and arrears of maintenance,
which were claimed to be in the sum of Rs.
husband was represented in the supra suit throug
It is evident from the record that the appellant
a statement before the National Lok Adalat on
application seeking to withdraw from the said statement was instituted on
07.06.2021. It is notable that in the meanwhile
23.04.2021 also instituted a suit for declaration
adoption deed. In the earlier suit for maintenance, instituted on 18.09.2020,
parte ad-interim injunction from releasing the service benefits was
vide order dated 05.05.2021 passed
Family Court, Bathinda. Thus, it is apparent that the pleas set up by the
That on 18.09.2020, the respondent-wife moved the civil Court
auperis, for her claim under Section
18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for recovery of maintenance
at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month for a
creating the charge of the aforesaid amount in the
along with the amount of arrears of maintenance of
on the service benefits of the appellant-husband working as
Rampura Phul, District Bathinda, since
promoted as Commissioner and due to retire from service within a few
The relief of permanent injunction was also sought restraining the
the employer and department of the respondent
releasing the service benefits/retiral benefits of the husband
before payment of the aforesaid claimed amount and arrears of maintenance,
which were claimed to be in the sum of Rs.44,69,512/-. The appellant
husband was represented in the supra suit through counsel.
It is evident from the record that the appellant-husband suffered
a statement before the National Lok Adalat on 10.04.2021, whereas the
application seeking to withdraw from the said statement was instituted on
meanwhile, the respondent-wife had on
suit for declaration inter alia challenging the
. In the earlier suit for maintenance, instituted on 18.09.2020,
interim injunction from releasing the service benefits was
passed by the learned Principal Judge,
Thus, it is apparent that the pleas set up by the
moved the civil Court
under Section
18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for recovery of maintenance
per month for a
creating the charge of the aforesaid amount in the
along with the amount of arrears of maintenance of
husband working as
, since
ice within a few
The relief of permanent injunction was also sought restraining the
the employer and department of the respondent-
of the husband
before payment of the aforesaid claimed amount and arrears of maintenance,
The appellant-
suffered
, whereas the
application seeking to withdraw from the said statement was instituted on
wife had on
challenging the
. In the earlier suit for maintenance, instituted on 18.09.2020,
interim injunction from releasing the service benefits was
by the learned Principal Judge,
Thus, it is apparent that the pleas set up by the
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
appellant-
volition before the National Lok Adalat, on 10.04.2021, is an afterthought.
The appellant
this Court
dated 29.0
amount of Rs.8,00,000/
said sum in her bank account.
to the respondent
withdrawn by the appellant
12.
the present appeal is whether an award not having been passed by the
National Lok Adalat on the date of reco
jurisdiction of the said Lok Adalat to subsequently record an
and the parties could be permitted to unilaterally withdraw their statement
before passing of such order/
13.
mind the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case
delve into the core issue for discussion, it would be apposite to refer to the
statutory scheme of Lok Adalats, provided under Chapter VI of the Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987
provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter for ready reference.
-10-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
-husband seeking to withdraw his statem
volition before the National Lok Adalat, on 10.04.2021, is an afterthought.
appellant-husband challenged the said order dated
this Court by way of CR-1433-2021 and in the said proceedings, vide order
29.07.2022, the official respondents were directed to release
amount of Rs.8,00,000/- in favour of respondent
sum in her bank account. Upon the said amount
to the respondent-wife, the supra revision
withdrawn by the appellant-husband on 09.09.2022.
The question that arises for consideration before this Court in
the present appeal is whether an award not having been passed by the
National Lok Adalat on the date of reco
jurisdiction of the said Lok Adalat to subsequently record an
and the parties could be permitted to unilaterally withdraw their statement
passing of such order/award.
We have profoundly considered
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case
delve into the core issue for discussion, it would be apposite to refer to the
statutory scheme of Lok Adalats, provided under Chapter VI of the Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, the “Act of 1987”),
provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter for ready reference.
CHAPTER VI
LOK ADALATS
19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.
Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal
husband seeking to withdraw his statement suffered of his own
volition before the National Lok Adalat, on 10.04.2021, is an afterthought.
said order dated 05.05.2021 before
021 and in the said proceedings, vide order
7.2022, the official respondents were directed to release
in favour of respondent-wife by transferring the
the said amount having been transferred
the supra revision petition (CR-1433-2021) was
09.09.2022.
The question that arises for consideration before this Court in
the present appeal is whether an award not having been passed by the
National Lok Adalat on the date of recording statements would oust the
jurisdiction of the said Lok Adalat to subsequently record an order/award
and the parties could be permitted to unilaterally withdraw their statement
profoundly considered the aforesaid issue, keeping
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. Before we
delve into the core issue for discussion, it would be apposite to refer to the
statutory scheme of Lok Adalats, provided under Chapter VI of the Legal
(for short, the “Act of 1987”), the relevant
provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter for ready reference.
CHAPTER VI
LOK ADALATS
19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.—(1) Every State
Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal
ent suffered of his own
volition before the National Lok Adalat, on 10.04.2021, is an afterthought.
before
021 and in the said proceedings, vide order
7.2022, the official respondents were directed to release an
by transferring the
having been transferred
2021) was
The question that arises for consideration before this Court in
the present appeal is whether an award not having been passed by the
ding statements would oust the
award
and the parties could be permitted to unilaterally withdraw their statement(s)
keeping in
Before we
delve into the core issue for discussion, it would be apposite to refer to the
statutory scheme of Lok Adalats, provided under Chapter VI of the Legal
relevant
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
-11-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services
Committee or, as the case may be,
Committee may organize Lok Adalats at such intervals and
places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as
it thinks fit.
(2) Every Lok Adalat organised for an area shall consist
of such number of—
(a) serving or retired judicial officers; and
(b) other persons,
of the area as may be specified by the State Authority or the
District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services
Committee or the High Court Legal Services Committee, or as
the case may be, the Taluk Legal Services Committee,
organising such Lok Adalat.
(3) The experience and qualifications of other persons
referred to in clause (b) of sub
organised by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee
shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government
in consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
(4) The experience and qualifications of other persons
referred to in clause (b) of sub
other than referred to in sub-section (3) shall be such as may be
prescribed by the State Government in consul
Chief Justice of the High Court.
(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine
and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties
to a dispute in respect of—
(i) any case pending before; or
(ii) any matter which is f
jurisdiction of, and is not brought before, any Court for
which the Lok Adalat is organised:
Provided that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction
in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not
compoundable under any law.
20. Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats.
Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services
Committee or, as the case may be, Taluk Legal Services
Committee may organize Lok Adalats at such intervals and
exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as
(2) Every Lok Adalat organised for an area shall consist
(a) serving or retired judicial officers; and
of the area as may be specified by the State Authority or the
District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services
Committee or the High Court Legal Services Committee, or as
the case may be, the Taluk Legal Services Committee,
(3) The experience and qualifications of other persons
referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) for Lok Adalats
organised by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee
shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government
the Chief Justice of India.
(4) The experience and qualifications of other persons
referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) for Lok Adalats
section (3) shall be such as may be
prescribed by the State Government in consultation with the
Chief Justice of the High Court.
(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine
and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties
(i) any case pending before; or
(ii) any matter which is falling within the
jurisdiction of, and is not brought before, any Court for
which the Lok Adalat is organised:
Provided that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction
in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not
20. Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats.—(1) Where
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
-12-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
in any case referred to in clause (i) of sub
19,—
(i) (a) the parties thereof agree; or
(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application
to the Court, for referring the
Adalat for settlement and if such court is
prima facie satisfied that there are chances of
such settlement; or
(ii) the court is satisfied that the matter is an
appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the
Lok Adalat,
the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat:
Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat
under sub-clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such court
except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to
the parties.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any e
law for the time being in force, the Authority or Committee
organising the Lok Adalat under sub
may, on receipt of an application from any one of the parties to
any matter referred to in clause (ii)
19 that such matter needs to be determined by a Lok Adalat,
refer such matter to the Lok Adalat, for determination:
Provided that no matter shall be referred to the Lok
Adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of b
heard to the other party.
(3) Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under
sub-section (1) or where a reference has been made to it under
sub-section (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the
case or matter and arrive at a compromise or
between the parties.
(4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any
reference before it under this Act, act with utmost expedition to
arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and
shall be guided by the principles of justice,
in any case referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section
(a) the parties thereof agree; or
(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application
to the Court, for referring the case to the Lok
Adalat for settlement and if such court is
prima facie satisfied that there are chances of
such settlement; or
court is satisfied that the matter is an
appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the
refer the case to the Lok Adalat:
Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat
clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such court
except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to
nything contained in any either
law for the time being in force, the Authority or Committee
organising the Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) of section19
may, on receipt of an application from any one of the parties to
any matter referred to in clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of section
19 that such matter needs to be determined by a Lok Adalat,
refer such matter to the Lok Adalat, for determination:
Provided that no matter shall be referred to the Lok
Adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being
(3) Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under
section (1) or where a reference has been made to it under
section (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the
case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement
(4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any
reference before it under this Act, act with utmost expedition to
arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and
shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
14.
and cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats, is governed by the provisions
enshrined
provisions
it stays with the said Lok Adalat until the same is returned to the Court, from
which the reference has been received under sub
accordance with law. In the case
cognizance of the case on 10.04.2021
husband had been recorded
assessment regarding the
wife, the matter was deferred to 30.10.2021. The presiding officer
on home quarantine, having tested Corona positive, the matter was posted
for 07.06.2021.
-13-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
other legal principles.
(5) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the
ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at
between the parties, the record of the case shall be returned by
it to the court, from which the reference has been received
under sub-section (1) for disposal in accordance with law.
(6) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the
ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at
between the parties, in a matter referred to in sub
that Lok Adalat shall advice the parties t
court.
(7) Where the record of the case if returned under sub
section (5) to the court, such court shall proceed to deal with
such case from the stage which was reached before such
reference under sub-section (1).
The organisation of Lok Adalats is provided under Section 19
and cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats, is governed by the provisions
enshrined under Section 20 of the Act (
provisions would reveal that once the Lok Adalat tak
it stays with the said Lok Adalat until the same is returned to the Court, from
which the reference has been received under sub
accordance with law. In the case at hand, the National Lok Adalat had tak
cognizance of the case on 10.04.2021, when the statement of the appellant
husband had been recorded but for minutely examin
assessment regarding the claim for compensation
the matter was deferred to 30.10.2021. The presiding officer
on home quarantine, having tested Corona positive, the matter was posted
07.06.2021. There is no material on record to suggest that the matter had
Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the
ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at
between the parties, the record of the case shall be returned by
it to the court, from which the reference has been received
or disposal in accordance with law.
Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the
ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at
between the parties, in a matter referred to in sub-section (2),
that Lok Adalat shall advice the parties to seek remedy in a
(7) Where the record of the case if returned under sub-
section (5) to the court, such court shall proceed to deal with
such case from the stage which was reached before such
section (1).”
The organisation of Lok Adalats is provided under Section 19
and cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats, is governed by the provisions
Section 20 of the Act (ibid). A perusal of the aforesaid
that once the Lok Adalat takes cognizance of a case,
it stays with the said Lok Adalat until the same is returned to the Court, from
which the reference has been received under sub-section (1), for disposal in
, the National Lok Adalat had tak
, when the statement of the appellant
minutely examining the record for
for compensation raised by the respondent
the matter was deferred to 30.10.2021. The presiding officer then being
on home quarantine, having tested Corona positive, the matter was posted
There is no material on record to suggest that the matter had
The organisation of Lok Adalats is provided under Section 19
and cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats, is governed by the provisions
. A perusal of the aforesaid
es cognizance of a case,
it stays with the said Lok Adalat until the same is returned to the Court, from
section (1), for disposal in
, the National Lok Adalat had taken
, when the statement of the appellant-
the record for
the respondent-
being
on home quarantine, having tested Corona positive, the matter was posted
There is no material on record to suggest that the matter had
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
been returned to the referral Cou
and the procedural hearings
National Lok Adalat, which ultimately passed the impugned order dated
17.09.2021.
case and not having returned it to the Court that had referred the same, t
matter remained with the Lok Adalat and it had jurisdiction to pass the
impugned order.
15.
circumstances aris
defer the proceedings to examine the record. It is not disputed that the
petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce
had been filed by the appellant
and it was his prerogative to withdraw his petition
the statement suffered on 10.04.2021, before the National Lok Adalat.
Having voluntarily
accepting it and passing the impugned order
commence
the laudable objective of the Act of 1987.
have legitimately
likely to be caused to her
divorce would not
passed in her favour
2005, respectively
Court and not just b
-14-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
been returned to the referral Court, as unsettled.
procedural hearings noticed above, the matter remained with the
National Lok Adalat, which ultimately passed the impugned order dated
17.09.2021. Thus, the National Lok Adalat having taken cognizance of
case and not having returned it to the Court that had referred the same, t
remained with the Lok Adalat and it had jurisdiction to pass the
impugned order.
A perusal of the impugned order would further show that in the
circumstances arising in the instant case, there was no legal necessity to
defer the proceedings to examine the record. It is not disputed that the
petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce
had been filed by the appellant-husband. As such
and it was his prerogative to withdraw his petition
the statement suffered on 10.04.2021, before the National Lok Adalat.
voluntarily made the statement (supra),
ng it and passing the impugned order
commenced on 23.12.2011 was being given a quietus
the laudable objective of the Act of 1987.
legitimately objected to the simplic
likely to be caused to her. Moreover, withdrawal of the main petition for
divorce would not also have any adverse effect upon the maintenance orders
passed in her favour under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 23 of the Ac
2005, respectively. In fact, such a prayer can also be granted by the Family
Court and not just by the Lok Adalat. Thus, in the considered view of this
rt, as unsettled. In the absence of the same
above, the matter remained with the
National Lok Adalat, which ultimately passed the impugned order dated
Thus, the National Lok Adalat having taken cognizance of
case and not having returned it to the Court that had referred the same, t
remained with the Lok Adalat and it had jurisdiction to pass the
A perusal of the impugned order would further show that in the
ing in the instant case, there was no legal necessity to
defer the proceedings to examine the record. It is not disputed that the
petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce
husband. As such, he was the dominus litis
and it was his prerogative to withdraw his petition unilaterally, in terms of
the statement suffered on 10.04.2021, before the National Lok Adalat.
statement (supra), there was no illegality in
ng it and passing the impugned order. Rather the litigation that had
was being given a quietus and the same is within
the laudable objective of the Act of 1987. The respondent-wife could not
objected to the simpliciter withdrawal, as no prejudice is
. Moreover, withdrawal of the main petition for
have any adverse effect upon the maintenance orders
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 23 of the Act of
In fact, such a prayer can also be granted by the Family
Thus, in the considered view of this
In the absence of the same
above, the matter remained with the
National Lok Adalat, which ultimately passed the impugned order dated
the
case and not having returned it to the Court that had referred the same, the
remained with the Lok Adalat and it had jurisdiction to pass the
A perusal of the impugned order would further show that in the
ing in the instant case, there was no legal necessity to
defer the proceedings to examine the record. It is not disputed that the
petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce
dominus litis
, in terms of
the statement suffered on 10.04.2021, before the National Lok Adalat.
illegality in
had
and the same is within
wife could not
e is
. Moreover, withdrawal of the main petition for
have any adverse effect upon the maintenance orders
t of
In fact, such a prayer can also be granted by the Family
Thus, in the considered view of this
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
Court, the National Lok Adalat should have passed the award on 10.04.2021
itself, after the appellant
statement to withdraw his main petition under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act.
16.
proposition that a statement made before the Lok Adalat cannot be
unilaterally recalled.
necessary
rule would be
other interpretation would be
prejudicial to
presented by the appell
Lok Adalat would face the peril of uncertainty and the legislative intent
would fail to be achieved. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the
appellant-
his own volition suffered the statement before the National Lok Adalat
10.04.2021
that the appellant
statement recorded, whi
rule. The statement was recorded on 10.04.2021 whereas the application for
withdrawing the same was filed on 07.06.2021, i.e., after about two months.
The delay caused in moving the application
also remains unexplained.
17.
-15-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
Court, the National Lok Adalat should have passed the award on 10.04.2021
itself, after the appellant-husband had suffered
statement to withdraw his main petition under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act.
The matter may be viewed from yet another angle. I
proposition that a statement made before the Lok Adalat cannot be
unilaterally recalled. For doing so, explicit consent of the other party is
necessary, which is not forthcoming in the present case
ould be qua a statement, which is
other interpretation would be in violation of
prejudicial to the laudable objective of the Act of 1987. If such a view
presented by the appellant, is permitted to
Lok Adalat would face the peril of uncertainty and the legislative intent
would fail to be achieved. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the
-husband was accompanied and assisted by
his own volition suffered the statement before the National Lok Adalat
10.04.2021. No cogent material has been
that the appellant-husband was under any handicap when he got his
statement recorded, which would render it to fall under
The statement was recorded on 10.04.2021 whereas the application for
withdrawing the same was filed on 07.06.2021, i.e., after about two months.
The delay caused in moving the application
also remains unexplained.
At the cost of repetition, it is writ large that the application for
Court, the National Lok Adalat should have passed the award on 10.04.2021
husband had suffered a voluntary univocal
statement to withdraw his main petition under Section 13 of the Hindu
ed from yet another angle. It is settled
proposition that a statement made before the Lok Adalat cannot be
, explicit consent of the other party is
forthcoming in the present case. Exception to
which is the result of deceit or fraud. Any
in violation of the statutory provisions and
objective of the Act of 1987. If such a view, as
is permitted to prevail, all settlements before the
Lok Adalat would face the peril of uncertainty and the legislative intent
would fail to be achieved. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the
husband was accompanied and assisted by his counsel, when he of
his own volition suffered the statement before the National Lok Adalat
material has been placed on record to demonstrate
husband was under any handicap when he got his
ch would render it to fall under any exception to the
The statement was recorded on 10.04.2021 whereas the application for
withdrawing the same was filed on 07.06.2021, i.e., after about two months.
The delay caused in moving the application for recalling of the statement
At the cost of repetition, it is writ large that the application for
Court, the National Lok Adalat should have passed the award on 10.04.2021
voluntary univocal
statement to withdraw his main petition under Section 13 of the Hindu
is settled
proposition that a statement made before the Lok Adalat cannot be
, explicit consent of the other party is
to the
or fraud. Any
the statutory provisions and
, as
, all settlements before the
Lok Adalat would face the peril of uncertainty and the legislative intent
would fail to be achieved. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the
counsel, when he of
on
placed on record to demonstrate
husband was under any handicap when he got his
exception to the
The statement was recorded on 10.04.2021 whereas the application for
withdrawing the same was filed on 07.06.2021, i.e., after about two months.
recalling of the statement,
At the cost of repetition, it is writ large that the application for
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
withdrawal of the statement suf
calculated move.
habitual of
tracking therefrom.
(Annexure P
Ex.C-1 with th
he failed
judicial proceedings in a casual manner,
husband. A party having taking a conscious stand
bound by his decision and cannot resile therefrom unless specifically
permitted by the statutory provisions.
18.
dated 17.09.2021
interference in appeal. Resultantly, the instant appeal being bereft of merit,
is dismissed.
FAO-1446
19.
the Act of 1984
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
20.
and his employ
extracted reliefs.
-16-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
withdrawal of the statement suffered on 10.04.2021 is an after
calculated move. Moreover, the record show
habitual of affecting a compromise before
therefrom. The same is evident from the order dated 10.04.2018
(Annexure P-4), whereby the appellant-husband had effected a compromise
1 with the respondent-wife but subsequently
to honour his commitment. No litigant can be allowed to take
judicial proceedings in a casual manner,
husband. A party having taking a conscious stand
bound by his decision and cannot resile therefrom unless specifically
permitted by the statutory provisions.
A corollary of the above discussion is that
dated 17.09.2021 does not suffer from any
interference in appeal. Resultantly, the instant appeal being bereft of merit,
is dismissed.
1446-2023
This appeal has been preferred
the Act of 1984, aggrieved by the order dated
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhatinda,
under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, has not been allowed
The plaintiff-Hem Lata Sharma filed a suit against her husband
and his employer department, on 23.09.2020
extracted reliefs.
fered on 10.04.2021 is an afterthought and a
Moreover, the record shows that the appellant-husband is
affecting a compromise before the Court and thereafter, back
evident from the order dated 10.04.2018
husband had effected a compromise
subsequently resiled therefrom, thereby
No litigant can be allowed to take
judicial proceedings in a casual manner, as has been done by the appellant
husband. A party having taking a conscious stand before the Court, remains
bound by his decision and cannot resile therefrom unless specifically
A corollary of the above discussion is that the impugned order
does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting
interference in appeal. Resultantly, the instant appeal being bereft of merit,
This appeal has been preferred by the wife under Section 19 of
aggrieved by the order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the
Bhatinda, whereby her application
has not been allowed in toto, as prayed.
Hem Lata Sharma filed a suit against her husband
on 23.09.2020, seeking the hereinafter
and a
husband is
back
evident from the order dated 10.04.2018
husband had effected a compromise
thereby
No litigant can be allowed to take
has been done by the appellant-
before the Court, remains
bound by his decision and cannot resile therefrom unless specifically
the impugned order
warranting
interference in appeal. Resultantly, the instant appeal being bereft of merit,
under Section 19 of
passed by the
application
as prayed.
Hem Lata Sharma filed a suit against her husband
seeking the hereinafter
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
21.
rules 1 and 2 CPC
relief.
-17-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
“Application under Order 33 Rule 1 read with section 151 of
CPC in forma pauperis as indigent persons to sue the defendant
under section 18 of Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act for
recovery of maintenance allowance/permanent alimony @
Rs.30,000/- per month to the plaintiff for the period of ten
years which comes out to Rs. 36,00,000/
charge of the said amount alongwith
maintenance allowance of Rs. 8,69,512/
benefits of the defendant who is working as Excise & Taxation
Officer, Rampura Phul, Distt: Bathinda and has now been
promoted as Commissioner and is going to retire from the
service within a few months.
AND
Suit for Permanent Injunction
no.2to5 from releasing the service
of the defendant before payment of the aforesaid amount of
permanent alimony of Rs. 36,00,000/
dues/arrears of maintenance,
approx., totalling Rs. 44,69,512/
detrimental to the rights and interest
In the supra suit the plaintiff filed an application
rules 1 and 2 CPC, on 23.09.2020, seeking the hereinafter extracted interim
“Application under order 39 rules 1 & 2 read with section 151
of CPC for grant of ad-interim injunction for restraining the
respondents No.2 to 5 from releasing the service benefits/
retirement benefits of the respondent before payment of the
aforesaid amount of permanent alimony of Rs.36 Lac and the
outstanding dues/ arrears of maintenance allowance of
Rs.8,69,512/- approximately, totaling Rs.44,69,512/
arbitrarily and detrimental to the rights
nder Order 33 Rule 1 read with section 151 of
CPC in forma pauperis as indigent persons to sue the defendant
nder section 18 of Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act for
recovery of maintenance allowance/permanent alimony @
per month to the plaintiff for the period of ten
years which comes out to Rs. 36,00,000/- and for creating the
charge of the said amount alongwith amount of arrears of
of Rs. 8,69,512/- on the service
benefits of the defendant who is working as Excise & Taxation
Phul, Distt: Bathinda and has now been
promoted as Commissioner and is going to retire from the
AND
ent Injunction for restraining the defendants
service benefits/retirement benefits
of the defendant before payment of the aforesaid amount of
permanent alimony of Rs. 36,00,000/- and the outstanding
allowance of Rs. 8,69,512/-
Rs. 44,69,512/- illegally, arbitrarily and
the rights and interest of the plaintiff.”
In the supra suit the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39
seeking the hereinafter extracted interim
“Application under order 39 rules 1 & 2 read with section 151
interim injunction for restraining the
respondents No.2 to 5 from releasing the service benefits/
the respondent before payment of the
aforesaid amount of permanent alimony of Rs.36 Lac and the
outstanding dues/ arrears of maintenance allowance of
approximately, totaling Rs.44,69,512/-illegally,
arbitrarily and detrimental to the rights and interest of the
under Order 39
seeking the hereinafter extracted interim
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
22.
was passed by the Family Court, which came to be impugned before this
Court by the defendant
revision petition, this Court vide order dated 29.07.2022 directed the official
respondents to release an amount of Rs.8,00,000/
wife. Upon the said amount having been transferred to the wife in her bank
account, CR
23.
husband by filing reply and upon consideration of rival submissions, the
same was
part whereof is extracted hereinafter
noticing that
Rs.20,000/
and order dated 07.09.2018 under
husband’s
orders for release of the said amount to the wife
order regarding
husband is not aggrieved by the same and neither has he preferred any
appeal before
appeal by the wife
-18-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
applicant, till final disposal of the suit.”
That vide order dated 05.05.2021,
was passed by the Family Court, which came to be impugned before this
Court by the defendant-husband by way of CR
revision petition, this Court vide order dated 29.07.2022 directed the official
respondents to release an amount of Rs.8,00,000/
wife. Upon the said amount having been transferred to the wife in her bank
CR-1433-2021 was withdrawn by the husband on 09.09.2022.
The application for ad-interim
husband by filing reply and upon consideration of rival submissions, the
same was partly allowed vide impugned order dated
part whereof is extracted hereinafter.
that maintenance stands awarded to the
Rs.20,000/- per month, vide order dated 04.10
and order dated 07.09.2018 under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
husband’s willingness and readiness to pay
orders for release of the said amount to the wife
egarding the maintenance amount
husband is not aggrieved by the same and neither has he preferred any
before this Court thereagainst nor filed cross
by the wife.
“During the course of arguments, the respondent did not
dispute the claim of applicant with regard to amount of
maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/
applicant, till final disposal of the suit.”
vide order dated 05.05.2021, an ex parte injunction order
was passed by the Family Court, which came to be impugned before this
husband by way of CR-1433-2021. In the said
revision petition, this Court vide order dated 29.07.2022 directed the official
respondents to release an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff
wife. Upon the said amount having been transferred to the wife in her bank
2021 was withdrawn by the husband on 09.09.2022.
interim injunction was contested by the
husband by filing reply and upon consideration of rival submissions, the
allowed vide impugned order dated 13.03.2023, operative
The learned Family Court, after
stands awarded to the plaintiff-wife at the rate of
order dated 04.10.2017 under the Act of 2005
Section 125 Cr.P.C., and relying upon
readiness to pay the maintenance amount, passed
orders for release of the said amount to the wife. The part of the impugned
is thus, consensual in nature. The
husband is not aggrieved by the same and neither has he preferred any
or filed cross-objections in the present
of arguments, the respondent did not
dispute the claim of applicant with regard to amount of
Rs.20,000/- per month awarded in
injunction order
was passed by the Family Court, which came to be impugned before this
1. In the said
revision petition, this Court vide order dated 29.07.2022 directed the official
in favour of the plaintiff-
wife. Upon the said amount having been transferred to the wife in her bank
injunction was contested by the
husband by filing reply and upon consideration of rival submissions, the
, operative
The learned Family Court, after
wife at the rate of
2017 under the Act of 2005
relying upon
passed
he part of the impugned
. The
husband is not aggrieved by the same and neither has he preferred any
objections in the present
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
24.
that despite
the competent courts, the husband
her and she ha
maintenance
voluntary retirement before his due date of superannuation and is also trying
to flee from the jurisdiction of the Family Court concerned after
withdrawing the entire amount of his terminal benefits. Seeking to protect
her claim, she has prayed for creating a charge upon the service benefits of
the husband.
25.
order and submits that the husban
maintenance amount to the wife, which has since been ordered to
to her and she has no
benefits. Moreover, the claim under Section 18 of the Hindu Adop
-19-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
the petition under section 125 Cr.PC
07.09.2018 and also in the petition under D.V..
dated 04.10.2017, and he is ready to pay maintenance amount
to respondent accordingly. As such, the remaining due amount
payable @ Rs.20,000/- per month is ordered to be released in
favour of the applicant out of the service/ retirement bene
respondent No.l and after
respondent No.2 to 5 are directed to release the remaining
amount of service/ retirement benefits of respondent No.1 in
his favour. Application, in hand, stands disposed of
accordingly.”
The appellant in this case, viz. Hema Lata
that despite the orders for maintenance having been passed in her favour by
the competent courts, the husband has avoided pay
her and she had to take recourse to proceed
maintenance. It is her pleaded case that the husband is trying to take
voluntary retirement before his due date of superannuation and is also trying
to flee from the jurisdiction of the Family Court concerned after
rawing the entire amount of his terminal benefits. Seeking to protect
her claim, she has prayed for creating a charge upon the service benefits of
the husband.
Learned counsel for the husband has defended the impugned
order and submits that the husband had expressed his readiness to pay the
maintenance amount to the wife, which has since been ordered to
to her and she has no right over the balance amount
. Moreover, the claim under Section 18 of the Hindu Adop
the petition under section 125 Cr.PC vide order dated
07.09.2018 and also in the petition under D.V.. Act vide order
dated 04.10.2017, and he is ready to pay maintenance amount
to respondent accordingly. As such, the remaining due amount
per month is ordered to be released in
favour of the applicant out of the service/ retirement benefits of
er deducting the said amount,
respondent No.2 to 5 are directed to release the remaining
amount of service/ retirement benefits of respondent No.1 in
his favour. Application, in hand, stands disposed of
The appellant in this case, viz. Hema Lata (plaintiff), has urged
orders for maintenance having been passed in her favour by
s avoided payment of any amount to
proceedings for recovering the arrears of
that the husband is trying to take
voluntary retirement before his due date of superannuation and is also trying
to flee from the jurisdiction of the Family Court concerned after
rawing the entire amount of his terminal benefits. Seeking to protect
her claim, she has prayed for creating a charge upon the service benefits of
Learned counsel for the husband has defended the impugned
d had expressed his readiness to pay the
maintenance amount to the wife, which has since been ordered to be released
over the balance amount of his service/retiral
. Moreover, the claim under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and
, has urged
orders for maintenance having been passed in her favour by
amount to
arrears of
that the husband is trying to take
voluntary retirement before his due date of superannuation and is also trying
to flee from the jurisdiction of the Family Court concerned after
rawing the entire amount of his terminal benefits. Seeking to protect
her claim, she has prayed for creating a charge upon the service benefits of
Learned counsel for the husband has defended the impugned
d had expressed his readiness to pay the
be released
of his service/retiral
tion and
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
Maintenance Act is yet to be adjudicated upon. It is further urged that the
suit for creating charge upon the property of the husband
awarded under the Act of 2005 as well as Cr.P.C.,
sustainable
jurisdiction, seeking recovery of arrears of maintenance
she cannot simultaneously seek two remedies
husband had since retired on 31.10.2021 and his ser
been released due to the impugned order having been stayed by this Court
vide order dated 27.03.2023.
26.
consideration upon the respective submissions advanced
is substance in the submissions of the husband.
claimed in the suit would show that they are in two parts.
of the plaintiff
Adoption and Maintenance Act;
from releasing the
payment of permanent alimony and arrears of maintenance
sought as ad
part of the relief in the
be in the nature of the
another aspect
secured are (i)
which were awarded under the Act of 2005 and Cr.P.C., respectively.
27.
-20-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
Maintenance Act is yet to be adjudicated upon. It is further urged that the
suit for creating charge upon the property of the husband
awarded under the Act of 2005 as well as Cr.P.C.,
sustainable in law. The plaintiff-wife has already invoked the competent
jurisdiction, seeking recovery of arrears of maintenance
she cannot simultaneously seek two remedies
husband had since retired on 31.10.2021 and his ser
been released due to the impugned order having been stayed by this Court
vide order dated 27.03.2023.
Having heard both the sides and
consideration upon the respective submissions advanced
s substance in the submissions of the husband.
claimed in the suit would show that they are in two parts.
of the plaintiff-wife for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act; and second
from releasing the service benefits/retirement benefits
payment of permanent alimony and arrears of maintenance
sought as ad-interim injunction is the same as
rt of the relief in the main suit. It is trite law that interim relief should not
be in the nature of the main relief sought in the case. However, there is
another aspect that needs to be examined.
secured are (i) that are yet to be determined in the present suit and (ii) those
were awarded under the Act of 2005 and Cr.P.C., respectively.
It is not disputed that amount of maintenance at the rate of
Maintenance Act is yet to be adjudicated upon. It is further urged that the
suit for creating charge upon the property of the husband for maintenance
awarded under the Act of 2005 as well as Cr.P.C., is misconceived and not
wife has already invoked the competent
jurisdiction, seeking recovery of arrears of maintenance and even otherwise
she cannot simultaneously seek two remedies. It is further submitted that the
husband had since retired on 31.10.2021 and his service benefits have not
been released due to the impugned order having been stayed by this Court
Having heard both the sides and given our anxious
consideration upon the respective submissions advanced, we find that there
s substance in the submissions of the husband. A perusal of the reliefs
claimed in the suit would show that they are in two parts. Firstly, the claim
wife for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu
secondly, for permanent injunction
/retirement benefits of the husband before
payment of permanent alimony and arrears of maintenance. The relief
interim injunction is the same as prayed through the second
It is trite law that interim relief should not
relief sought in the case. However, there is
. The claimed amounts sought to be
yet to be determined in the present suit and (ii) those
were awarded under the Act of 2005 and Cr.P.C., respectively.
that amount of maintenance at the rate of
Maintenance Act is yet to be adjudicated upon. It is further urged that the
for maintenance
and not
wife has already invoked the competent
and even otherwise
It is further submitted that the
vice benefits have not
been released due to the impugned order having been stayed by this Court
given our anxious
, we find that there
A perusal of the reliefs
the claim
wife for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu
permanent injunction
before
The relief
the second
It is trite law that interim relief should not
relief sought in the case. However, there is
The claimed amounts sought to be
yet to be determined in the present suit and (ii) those
that amount of maintenance at the rate of
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
Rs.20,000/
and the Act of 2005.
being regularly paid and he has further expressly stated in his affidavit filed
on 01.12.2022, before the court below, that he is also ready to clear the
arrears of maintenan
been withheld.
wife (appellant in this appeal) has already
enforcing the same and
provisions for the said purpose, both
extracted hereinafter for refe
-21-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
Rs.20,000/- has been awarded to the wife both under Section 125
and the Act of 2005. The husband has claimed that the aforesaid amount is
being regularly paid and he has further expressly stated in his affidavit filed
on 01.12.2022, before the court below, that he is also ready to clear the
arrears of maintenance but he is unable to do so, as his service benefits have
been withheld. Pursuant to the making of the aforesaid orders, the plaintiff
wife (appellant in this appeal) has already
enforcing the same and for recovery of arrears of
provisions for the said purpose, both under
extracted hereinafter for reference.
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
20. Monetary reliefs.—
application under sub-section (1) of section 12,the Magistrate
may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the
expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person
and any child of the aggrieved person as a r
domestic violence and such relief may include, but not limited
to,—
(a) the loss of earnings;
(b) the medical expenses;
(c) the loss caused due to the destruction, damage
or removal of any property from the control of the
aggrieved person; and
(d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as
well as her children, if any, including an order under or
in addition to an order of maintenance under section 125
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or
any other law for the time being
(2) The monetary relief granted under this section shall be
adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard
of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed.
has been awarded to the wife both under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
The husband has claimed that the aforesaid amount is
being regularly paid and he has further expressly stated in his affidavit filed
on 01.12.2022, before the court below, that he is also ready to clear the
ce but he is unable to do so, as his service benefits have
Pursuant to the making of the aforesaid orders, the plaintiff
wife (appellant in this appeal) has already instituted proceedings for
recovery of arrears of maintenance. The relevant
under the Act of 2005 and Cr.P.C.,
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
—(1) While disposing of an
section (1) of section 12,the Magistrate
may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the
expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person
and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the
domestic violence and such relief may include, but not limited
(a) the loss of earnings;
(b) the medical expenses;
(c) the loss caused due to the destruction, damage
or removal of any property from the control of the
(d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as
well as her children, if any, including an order under or
in addition to an order of maintenance under section 125
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or
any other law for the time being in force.
(2) The monetary relief granted under this section shall be
adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard
of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed.
Cr.P.C.
The husband has claimed that the aforesaid amount is
being regularly paid and he has further expressly stated in his affidavit filed
on 01.12.2022, before the court below, that he is also ready to clear the
ce but he is unable to do so, as his service benefits have
Pursuant to the making of the aforesaid orders, the plaintiff-
proceedings for
maintenance. The relevant
are
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
-22-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
(3) The Magistrate shall have the power to order an
appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payments of
maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may
require.
(4) The Magistrate shall send a copy of the order for
monetary relief made under sub
application and to the in charge of the police station within the
local limits of whose jurisdiction the respondent resides.
(5) The respondent shall pay the monetary relief granted
to the aggrieved person within the period specified in the order
under sub-section (1).
(6) Upon the failure on the part of the respondent to make
payment in terms of the order under sub
Magistrate may direct the employer or a debtor of the
respondent, to directly pay to the aggrieved person or to
deposit with the court a portion of the
due to or accrued to the credit of the respondent, which amount
may be adjusted towards the monetary relief payable by the
respondent.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and
parents.—(1) xxx xxx xxx
(2) xxx xxx xxx
(3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause
to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every
breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due
in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence
such person, for the whole or any part of each month’s
allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and
expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, remaining unpaid
after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term
which may extend to one month or
made:
Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery
of any amount due under this section unless application be
made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one
(3) The Magistrate shall have the power to order an
mp sum payment or monthly payments of
maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may
(4) The Magistrate shall send a copy of the order for
monetary relief made under sub-section (1) to the parties to the
arge of the police station within the
local limits of whose jurisdiction the respondent resides.
(5) The respondent shall pay the monetary relief granted
to the aggrieved person within the period specified in the order
failure on the part of the respondent to make
payment in terms of the order under sub-section (1), the
Magistrate may direct the employer or a debtor of the
respondent, to directly pay to the aggrieved person or to
deposit with the court a portion of the wages or salaries or debt
due to or accrued to the credit of the respondent, which amount
may be adjusted towards the monetary relief payable by the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and
If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause
to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every
breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due
in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence
the whole or any part of each month’s
allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and
expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, remaining unpaid
after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term
which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner
Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery
of any amount due under this section unless application be
made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
-23-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
year from the date on which it became due:
Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his
wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live
with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal
stated by her, and may make an order under this section
notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just
ground for so doing.
Explanation.—If a husband has contracted marriage with
another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be
just ground for his wife’s refusal to live with him.
xxxx xxxx
421. Warrant for levy of fine.
has been sentenced to pay a fine, the Court passing the
sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in either
or both of the following ways, that is to say, it may
(a) issue a warrant for the
attachment and sale of any movable property belonging
to the offender;
(b) issue a warrant to the Collector of the district,
authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land
revenue from the movable or immovable property, or
both, of the defaulter:
Provided that, if the sentence directs that in default of
payment of the fine, the offender shall be imprisoned, and if
such offender has undergone the whole of such imprisonment
in default, no Court shall issue such warrant unless
reasons to be recorded in writing, it considers it necessary so to
do, or unless it has made an order for the payment of expenses
or compensation out of the fine under section 357.
(2) The State Government may make rules regulating the
manner in which warrants under clause (a) of sub
are to be executed, and for the summary determination of any
claims made by any person other than the offender in respect of
any property attached in execution of such warrant.
(3) Where the Court issues a warrant to the Collector
under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the Collector shall realise
the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of
arrears of land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate
issued under such law:
Provided that no such warrant shall be executed by the
arrest or detention in prison of the offender.
422. Effect of such warrant.
clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 421 by any Court may
year from the date on which it became due:
ovided further that if such person offers to maintain his
wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live
with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal
stated by her, and may make an order under this section
g such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just
If a husband has contracted marriage with
another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be
just ground for his wife’s refusal to live with him.
421. Warrant for levy of fine.—(1) When an offender
has been sentenced to pay a fine, the Court passing the
sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in either
or both of the following ways, that is to say, it may—
(a) issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by
attachment and sale of any movable property belonging
(b) issue a warrant to the Collector of the district,
authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land
revenue from the movable or immovable property, or
Provided that, if the sentence directs that in default of
payment of the fine, the offender shall be imprisoned, and if
such offender has undergone the whole of such imprisonment
in default, no Court shall issue such warrant unless, for special
reasons to be recorded in writing, it considers it necessary so to
do, or unless it has made an order for the payment of expenses
or compensation out of the fine under section 357.
(2) The State Government may make rules regulating the
r in which warrants under clause (a) of sub-section (1)
are to be executed, and for the summary determination of any
claims made by any person other than the offender in respect of
any property attached in execution of such warrant.
sues a warrant to the Collector
section (1), the Collector shall realise
the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of
arrears of land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate
hat no such warrant shall be executed by the
arrest or detention in prison of the offender.
422. Effect of such warrant.—A warrant issued under
section (1) of section 421 by any Court may
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
28.
orders awarding maintenance amount under the Act of 2005
could only be enforced in the manner prescribed herein above and thus, the
plea of the
service/ retirement benefits of the husband
keeping in view the categoric stand taken by the husband in his reply to the
ad interim injunction application and
pay the arrears of maintenance amount of his own volition, before the court
below, we deem it appropriate not to interfere in that aspect
order, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, to secure
the plaintiff
determined in the suit,
interim injunction cannot be e
-24-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
be executed within the local jurisdiction of such
shall authorise the attachment and sale of any such property
outside such jurisdiction, when it is endorsed by the District
Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction such property is
found.
423. Warrant for levy of fine issued by a Court i
territory to which this Code does not extend.
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code or in any
other law for the time being in force, when an offender has
been sentenced to pay a fine by a Criminal Court in any
territory to which this Code does not extend and the Court
passing the sentence issues a warrant to the Collector of a
district in the territories to which this Code extends,
authorising him to realise the amount as if it were an arrear of
land revenue, such warrant shall be deemed to
issued under clause (b) of sub
Court in the territories to which this Code extends, and the
provisions of sub-section (3) of the said section as to the
execution of such warrant shall apply accordingly.
A perusal of the supra statutory provisions would show that the
orders awarding maintenance amount under the Act of 2005
could only be enforced in the manner prescribed herein above and thus, the
plea of the plaintiff-wife seeking to simultaneo
service/ retirement benefits of the husband
keeping in view the categoric stand taken by the husband in his reply to the
ad interim injunction application and also having
pay the arrears of maintenance amount of his own volition, before the court
below, we deem it appropriate not to interfere in that aspect
in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, to secure
the plaintiff-wife as permanent alimony/maintenance
determined in the suit, is also ill-conceived.
interim injunction cannot be equated with those enshrined under Order 3
be executed within the local jurisdiction of such Court, and it
shall authorise the attachment and sale of any such property
outside such jurisdiction, when it is endorsed by the District
Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction such property is
423. Warrant for levy of fine issued by a Court in any
territory to which this Code does not extend.—
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code or in any
other law for the time being in force, when an offender has
been sentenced to pay a fine by a Criminal Court in any
does not extend and the Court
passing the sentence issues a warrant to the Collector of a
district in the territories to which this Code extends,
authorising him to realise the amount as if it were an arrear of
land revenue, such warrant shall be deemed to be a warrant
issued under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 421 by a
Court in the territories to which this Code extends, and the
section (3) of the said section as to the
execution of such warrant shall apply accordingly.
A perusal of the supra statutory provisions would show that the
orders awarding maintenance amount under the Act of 2005 or Cr.P.C.
could only be enforced in the manner prescribed herein above and thus, the
wife seeking to simultaneously create a charge over
service/ retirement benefits of the husband, is misconceived. However,
keeping in view the categoric stand taken by the husband in his reply to the
also having expressed his readiness to
pay the arrears of maintenance amount of his own volition, before the court
below, we deem it appropriate not to interfere in that aspect of the impugned
in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Moreover, taking recourse to t
provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, to secure the sums claimed
permanent alimony/maintenance, which are yet to be
conceived. The provisions for grant of ad
quated with those enshrined under Order 3
A perusal of the supra statutory provisions would show that the
Cr.P.C.,
could only be enforced in the manner prescribed herein above and thus, the
usly create a charge over
is misconceived. However,
keeping in view the categoric stand taken by the husband in his reply to the
pressed his readiness to
pay the arrears of maintenance amount of his own volition, before the court
of the impugned
aking recourse to the
ed by
, which are yet to be
The provisions for grant of ad
quated with those enshrined under Order 38
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
Civil Procedure
29.
appeal fails and is resultantly
30.
31.
would not prejudice the right of the wife to seek her appropriate remedy, if
so advised, be it for enforcement of the orders granting maintenance or for
attachment before judgment
adjudicated in the suit, in accordance with law.
TA-184-2023
32.
Sharma seeking transfer of civil suit titled as
others’ from the Court of Sh. Himanshu Singh, Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Sirsa, to some other Court of competent jurisdiction at
Bathinda.
33.
2021, seeking the hereinafter extrac
-25-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
rocedure Code, pertaining to attachment before judgment.
In the light of the above discussion, in summa, the instant
appeal fails and is resultantly, dismissed.
No order as to costs.
It is, however, clarified that the dismissal of the instant appeal
would not prejudice the right of the wife to seek her appropriate remedy, if
so advised, be it for enforcement of the orders granting maintenance or for
attachment before judgment, regarding h
adjudicated in the suit, in accordance with law.
2023
This transfer application has been preferred by Hem
Sharma seeking transfer of civil suit titled as
from the Court of Sh. Himanshu Singh, Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Sirsa, to some other Court of competent jurisdiction at
Bathinda.
The applicant herein filed the above captioned civil suit in April
2021, seeking the hereinafter extracted reliefs:
“Suit for declaration to the effect that the alleged
adoption deed no. 284 dated 25.1.2016 executed between
the defendant no.1 and the defendants no.2&3
the adoption of the defendant no. 4 by the defendant no.1
from the defendants no.3&4 is totally wrong, illegal
and void, without any competence, without adopting
proper procedure as per law, result of fraud
the defendants with the plaintiff and the same has been
brought into existence by the defendants in collusion
connivance with each other to cause wrongful loss to the
, pertaining to attachment before judgment.
In the light of the above discussion, in summa, the instant
is, however, clarified that the dismissal of the instant appeal
would not prejudice the right of the wife to seek her appropriate remedy, if
so advised, be it for enforcement of the orders granting maintenance or for
ding her claims that are yet to be
adjudicated in the suit, in accordance with law.
This transfer application has been preferred by Hem L
Sharma seeking transfer of civil suit titled as ‘Hem Lata vs. Rishi Kumar and
from the Court of Sh. Himanshu Singh, Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Sirsa, to some other Court of competent jurisdiction at
The applicant herein filed the above captioned civil suit in April
ted reliefs:-
Suit for declaration to the effect that the alleged
adoption deed no. 284 dated 25.1.2016 executed between
and the defendants no.2&3 regarding
he adoption of the defendant no. 4 by the defendant no.1
no.3&4 is totally wrong, illegal null
and void, without any competence, without adopting
proper procedure as per law, result of fraud committed by
the defendants with the plaintiff and the same has been
brought into existence by the defendants in collusion and
connivance with each other to cause wrongful loss to the
In the light of the above discussion, in summa, the instant
is, however, clarified that the dismissal of the instant appeal
would not prejudice the right of the wife to seek her appropriate remedy, if
so advised, be it for enforcement of the orders granting maintenance or for
yet to be
Lata
ata vs. Rishi Kumar and
from the Court of Sh. Himanshu Singh, Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Sirsa, to some other Court of competent jurisdiction at
The applicant herein filed the above captioned civil suit in April
Suit for declaration to the effect that the alleged
adoption deed no. 284 dated 25.1.2016 executed between
regarding
he adoption of the defendant no. 4 by the defendant no.1
ull
and void, without any competence, without adopting
by
the defendants with the plaintiff and the same has been
and
connivance with each other to cause wrongful loss to the
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
34.
presently residing at Bathinda for the last about 10 years and has
matrimonial dispute with her husband (respondent No.1 herein). It is fur
averred that other litigation is already
husband at Bathinda. Respondent No.1, after superannuating from service is
residing at Sirsa, which is his home town. The applicant apprehends danger
to her life at the han
been openly threatened
the above captioned suit
that it is very inconvenient for her to travel from Bathinda to Sirsa to pursue
-26-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
plaintiff and to deprive the plaintiff from the properties of
the defendant no. l as well as service benefits of the
defendant no.l who is working as Excise and Taxation
Officer and as such the alleged adoption deed is ineffective
and inoperative as against the rights of the
same is liable to be set aside and further declaration to the
effect that the defendant no.4, who
the defendants no. 2 &
the defendant no.l and the movable/ immovable properties
of the defendant no.l on the basis of the alleged adoption
deed no.284 dated 25.1.2016.
Suit for permanent injunction for restraining the
defendant no.l from transferring
properties, standing in the name of the defendant no. 1, and
also service benefits of the defendant no. 1, in favour of
the defendant no. 4 illegally, arbitrarily and detrimental to
the rights and interest of the plaintiff who is
wedded wife of the defendant no. 1.
It is pleaded in the transfer application that the applicant is
presently residing at Bathinda for the last about 10 years and has
matrimonial dispute with her husband (respondent No.1 herein). It is fur
averred that other litigation is already pending
husband at Bathinda. Respondent No.1, after superannuating from service is
residing at Sirsa, which is his home town. The applicant apprehends danger
to her life at the hands of respondent No.1 and his family members
been openly threatened with dire consequences
the above captioned suit. The applicant has appeared in person and urged
that it is very inconvenient for her to travel from Bathinda to Sirsa to pursue
plaintiff and to deprive the plaintiff from the properties of
the defendant no. l as well as service benefits of the
defendant no.l who is working as Excise and Taxation
alleged adoption deed is ineffective
against the rights of the plaintiff and the
same is liable to be set aside and further declaration to the
effect that the defendant no.4, who is a biological son of
3, has absolutely no concern with
the defendant no.l and the movable/ immovable properties
of the defendant no.l on the basis of the alleged adoption
deed no.284 dated 25.1.2016.
AND
Suit for permanent injunction for restraining the
defendant no.l from transferring his movable or immovable
properties, standing in the name of the defendant no. 1, and
also service benefits of the defendant no. 1, in favour of
the defendant no. 4 illegally, arbitrarily and detrimental to
the rights and interest of the plaintiff who is a legally
wedded wife of the defendant no. 1.”
It is pleaded in the transfer application that the applicant is
presently residing at Bathinda for the last about 10 years and has
matrimonial dispute with her husband (respondent No.1 herein). It is further
pending between the applicant and her
husband at Bathinda. Respondent No.1, after superannuating from service is
residing at Sirsa, which is his home town. The applicant apprehends danger
ds of respondent No.1 and his family members having
with dire consequences, thus, she is unable to pursue
. The applicant has appeared in person and urged
that it is very inconvenient for her to travel from Bathinda to Sirsa to pursue
plaintiff and to deprive the plaintiff from the properties of
the defendant no. l as well as service benefits of the
defendant no.l who is working as Excise and Taxation
alleged adoption deed is ineffective
and the
same is liable to be set aside and further declaration to the
biological son of
utely no concern with
the defendant no.l and the movable/ immovable properties
of the defendant no.l on the basis of the alleged adoption
Suit for permanent injunction for restraining the
his movable or immovable
properties, standing in the name of the defendant no. 1, and
also service benefits of the defendant no. 1, in favour of
the defendant no. 4 illegally, arbitrarily and detrimental to
a legally
It is pleaded in the transfer application that the applicant is
presently residing at Bathinda for the last about 10 years and has
ther
between the applicant and her
husband at Bathinda. Respondent No.1, after superannuating from service is
residing at Sirsa, which is his home town. The applicant apprehends danger
having
, thus, she is unable to pursue
. The applicant has appeared in person and urged
that it is very inconvenient for her to travel from Bathinda to Sirsa to pursue
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
the matter and, thus prays that the present application be allowed and the
above captioned suit be transferred to a Court of co
Bathinda.
35.
other litigation as well before this Court,
by this common judgment. In an appeal preferred by the applicant
No.FAO-1446
directed the registry
with the said appeal.
appearing in the connected appeals
the applicant are incorrect and not sustainable in law. It has been pointed out
that the above captioned suit was instituted on 23.04.2021 and the issues
were framed
plaintiff’s evidence.
suit as many as 24 hearings had taken place upto
proceedings were adjourned in deference to the order dated 12.10.2023
passed by the lear
Moreover, as per the own pleadings of the applicant, the entire cause of
action has accrued to the applicant at Sirsa and all the defendants are also
residing at
relevant to the
36.
respondent No.1, who have entered appearance in the connected appeals and
perused the record.
-27-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
the matter and, thus prays that the present application be allowed and the
above captioned suit be transferred to a Court of co
Bathinda.
Perusal of the record shows that the applicant has been pursuing
other litigation as well before this Court,
common judgment. In an appeal preferred by the applicant
1446-2023, a coordinate bench vide order dated 24.07.202
directed the registry of this Court to attach the
with the said appeal. Learned counsel for respondent No.1
appearing in the connected appeals, have s
the applicant are incorrect and not sustainable in law. It has been pointed out
that the above captioned suit was instituted on 23.04.2021 and the issues
framed vide order dated 05.09.2022. Thereafter, the trial is pe
plaintiff’s evidence. It is further submitted that since the institution of the
as many as 24 hearings had taken place upto
proceedings were adjourned in deference to the order dated 12.10.2023
passed by the learned single Judge in the instant transfer application.
Moreover, as per the own pleadings of the applicant, the entire cause of
action has accrued to the applicant at Sirsa and all the defendants are also
residing at Sirsa. The necessary corollary is that a
relevant to the lis is also at Sirsa.
We have heard the applicant and the counsel for the husband
respondent No.1, who have entered appearance in the connected appeals and
perused the record.
the matter and, thus prays that the present application be allowed and the
above captioned suit be transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at
Perusal of the record shows that the applicant has been pursuing
other litigation as well before this Court, two of which are being disposed of
common judgment. In an appeal preferred by the applicant being
2023, a coordinate bench vide order dated 24.07.2023 had
attach the present transfer application
Learned counsel for respondent No.1, who are
have submitted that the pleas raised by
the applicant are incorrect and not sustainable in law. It has been pointed out
that the above captioned suit was instituted on 23.04.2021 and the issues
vide order dated 05.09.2022. Thereafter, the trial is pending for
It is further submitted that since the institution of the
as many as 24 hearings had taken place upto 30.10.2023, whereafter, the
proceedings were adjourned in deference to the order dated 12.10.2023
udge in the instant transfer application.
Moreover, as per the own pleadings of the applicant, the entire cause of
action has accrued to the applicant at Sirsa and all the defendants are also
The necessary corollary is that all the material evidence
We have heard the applicant and the counsel for the husband
respondent No.1, who have entered appearance in the connected appeals and
the matter and, thus prays that the present application be allowed and the
mpetent jurisdiction at
Perusal of the record shows that the applicant has been pursuing
being disposed of
being
had
present transfer application
who are
ubmitted that the pleas raised by
the applicant are incorrect and not sustainable in law. It has been pointed out
that the above captioned suit was instituted on 23.04.2021 and the issues
nding for
It is further submitted that since the institution of the
30.10.2023, whereafter, the
proceedings were adjourned in deference to the order dated 12.10.2023,
udge in the instant transfer application.
Moreover, as per the own pleadings of the applicant, the entire cause of
action has accrued to the applicant at Sirsa and all the defendants are also
ll the material evidence
We have heard the applicant and the counsel for the husband-
respondent No.1, who have entered appearance in the connected appeals and
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
37.
matters relating to transfer of litigation, the convenience of a woman, ought
to be considered. In
197, the Apex Court observed that number of transfer petitions are filed by
women taking advantage of the leniency shown by the
further observed
was being misused by women and held
consider each petition on its merit. The said view has since been followed in
a number of cases.
Court in TA
Singh, decided on 07.08.2024, since reported in 2024 NCPHHC 101765.
Thus, there is no dispute to the proposition that the convenience of a woman,
ought to be considered, but the same is not a thumb rule and each case has to
be decided, keeping in view
38.
has been pursuing her litigation before this Court in person. She has been
regularly commuting from Bathinda to Chandigarh to contest her cases
has never raised a
between Sirsa
to Chandigarh is 230 kms.
residence
case, while deciding the present transfer application.
39.
to reflect upon the events
-28-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
No doubt, in a plethora of judgments, it has been held that in
matters relating to transfer of litigation, the convenience of a woman, ought
to be considered. In Anindita Das vs. Sr
, the Apex Court observed that number of transfer petitions are filed by
women taking advantage of the leniency shown by the
further observed therein that it was clear that leniency of the Supreme Court
was being misused by women and held,
consider each petition on its merit. The said view has since been followed in
number of cases. A similar view has been taken
in TA-1023-2023 titled as Manpreet Kaur and another vs. Davin
, decided on 07.08.2024, since reported in 2024 NCPHHC 101765.
Thus, there is no dispute to the proposition that the convenience of a woman,
ought to be considered, but the same is not a thumb rule and each case has to
be decided, keeping in view its factual matrix.
In the present case, it would be noteworthy that the applicant
has been pursuing her litigation before this Court in person. She has been
regularly commuting from Bathinda to Chandigarh to contest her cases
has never raised any grouse on that count
Sirsa and Bathinda is 98 kms, whereas the distance from Bathinda
to Chandigarh is 230 kms. Thus, the distance of the Courts from
residence of the applicant would not be a valid consideration
while deciding the present transfer application.
Moreover, the applicant has not placed on record any material
reflect upon the events that have caused her to apprehend threat from
judgments, it has been held that in
matters relating to transfer of litigation, the convenience of a woman, ought
Anindita Das vs. Srijit Das, reported in (2006) 9 SCC
, the Apex Court observed that number of transfer petitions are filed by
women taking advantage of the leniency shown by the said Court. It
that it was clear that leniency of the Supreme Court
, that the Court is now required to
consider each petition on its merit. The said view has since been followed in
A similar view has been taken by a single Bench of this
Manpreet Kaur and another vs. Davin
, decided on 07.08.2024, since reported in 2024 NCPHHC 101765.
Thus, there is no dispute to the proposition that the convenience of a woman,
ought to be considered, but the same is not a thumb rule and each case has to
its factual matrix.
, it would be noteworthy that the applicant
has been pursuing her litigation before this Court in person. She has been
regularly commuting from Bathinda to Chandigarh to contest her cases, and
count. The distance of the Courts
, whereas the distance from Bathinda
Thus, the distance of the Courts from
would not be a valid consideration in the present
while deciding the present transfer application.
Moreover, the applicant has not placed on record any material
that have caused her to apprehend threat from
judgments, it has been held that in
matters relating to transfer of litigation, the convenience of a woman, ought
(2006) 9 SCC
, the Apex Court observed that number of transfer petitions are filed by
Court. It is
that it was clear that leniency of the Supreme Court
that the Court is now required to
consider each petition on its merit. The said view has since been followed in
by a single Bench of this
Manpreet Kaur and another vs. Davinder
, decided on 07.08.2024, since reported in 2024 NCPHHC 101765.
Thus, there is no dispute to the proposition that the convenience of a woman,
ought to be considered, but the same is not a thumb rule and each case has to
, it would be noteworthy that the applicant
has been pursuing her litigation before this Court in person. She has been
, and
The distance of the Courts
, whereas the distance from Bathinda
Thus, the distance of the Courts from the
in the present
Moreover, the applicant has not placed on record any material
that have caused her to apprehend threat from
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
respondent No.1, except for the bald statement made in the
application
The applicant has also not referred to any instance of
accosted by
substantiate the aforesaid ground on which transfer has been sought.
40.
manner in which litigation is
A conscious effort has been made by all concerned
justice to ensure that access to Courts is made available to every citizen, at
their door step through video conferencing. The Apex Court in
Vijaya Venketesh
guidance
concerned.
of the Constitution of India has framed
Conferencing for Courts’, which have been notified on 10.12.2021.
Accordingly, the same have been incorporated in Part H of Chapter 1 of the
Rules and Orders of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Volume V.
correction slip No.82, Rules/II.D4 dated 10
also been incorporated for subordinate Courts in the States of Punjab,
Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh. Thus, in view of the same, the applicant is
not required to physically be present before the Courts at Sirsa on each and
every date and
the case through video conferencing.
41.
-29-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
respondent No.1, except for the bald statement made in the
application. There is no material on record to substantiate the aforesaid plea.
The applicant has also not referred to any instance of
accosted by her husband (respondent No.1 herein)
ntiate the aforesaid ground on which transfer has been sought.
It may also be noticed that post COVID
manner in which litigation is being conducted has undergone a sea change.
A conscious effort has been made by all concerned
to ensure that access to Courts is made available to every citizen, at
door step through video conferencing. The Apex Court in
Vijaya Venketesh, reported in (2018) 1 SCC 1,
as far as appearance of the parties through video conferencing is
concerned. Even this Court in exercise of powers under Article
of the Constitution of India has framed
Conferencing for Courts’, which have been notified on 10.12.2021.
Accordingly, the same have been incorporated in Part H of Chapter 1 of the
Rules and Orders of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Volume V.
correction slip No.82, Rules/II.D4 dated 10
also been incorporated for subordinate Courts in the States of Punjab,
Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh. Thus, in view of the same, the applicant is
not required to physically be present before the Courts at Sirsa on each and
date and she can cause her appearance and
the case through video conferencing.
We have given thoughtful consideration to the various judicial
respondent No.1, except for the bald statement made in the instant transfer
here is no material on record to substantiate the aforesaid plea.
The applicant has also not referred to any instance of misadventure or threat
d (respondent No.1 herein), so as to even remotely
ntiate the aforesaid ground on which transfer has been sought.
It may also be noticed that post COVID-19 pandemic, the
conducted has undergone a sea change.
A conscious effort has been made by all concerned with administration of
to ensure that access to Courts is made available to every citizen, at
door step through video conferencing. The Apex Court in Santhini vs.
(2018) 1 SCC 1, has given sufficient
as far as appearance of the parties through video conferencing is
in exercise of powers under Articles 225 and 227
of the Constitution of India has framed rules titled as ‘Rules for Video
Conferencing for Courts’, which have been notified on 10.12.2021.
Accordingly, the same have been incorporated in Part H of Chapter 1 of the
Rules and Orders of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Volume V. Vide
correction slip No.82, Rules/II.D4 dated 10.12.2021, the said Rules have
also been incorporated for subordinate Courts in the States of Punjab,
Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh. Thus, in view of the same, the applicant is
not required to physically be present before the Courts at Sirsa on each and
can cause her appearance and conveniently proceed with
We have given thoughtful consideration to the various judicial
transfer
here is no material on record to substantiate the aforesaid plea.
threat
so as to even remotely
19 pandemic, the
conducted has undergone a sea change.
with administration of
to ensure that access to Courts is made available to every citizen, at
Santhini vs.
given sufficient
as far as appearance of the parties through video conferencing is
225 and 227
Video
Conferencing for Courts’, which have been notified on 10.12.2021.
Accordingly, the same have been incorporated in Part H of Chapter 1 of the
Vide
.12.2021, the said Rules have
also been incorporated for subordinate Courts in the States of Punjab,
Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh. Thus, in view of the same, the applicant is
not required to physically be present before the Courts at Sirsa on each and
proceed with
We have given thoughtful consideration to the various judicial
FAO-3251
TA-184-2023
pronouncements regarding transfer of litigation and the factual matrix of the
present case and are not inclined to accept the present transfer application.
42.
for transfer the civil suit instituted by the applicant herein. Accordingly, the
transfer application
43.
and the transfer application stand dismissed.
44.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
May 16, 2025
sumit.k
-30-
3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 &
2023
pronouncements regarding transfer of litigation and the factual matrix of the
sent case and are not inclined to accept the present transfer application.
In the light of the aforesaid observations,
for transfer the civil suit instituted by the applicant herein. Accordingly, the
transfer application being bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed.
The cumulative result of the aforesaid is that both the appeals
the transfer application stand dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
, 2025
Whether speaking/reasoned :
Whether Reportable :
pronouncements regarding transfer of litigation and the factual matrix of the
sent case and are not inclined to accept the present transfer application.
In the light of the aforesaid observations, no case is made out
for transfer the civil suit instituted by the applicant herein. Accordingly, the
bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed.
of the aforesaid is that both the appeals
the transfer application stand dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(VIKAS SURI)
JUDGE
Yes / No
Yes / No
pronouncements regarding transfer of litigation and the factual matrix of the
sent case and are not inclined to accept the present transfer application.
no case is made out
for transfer the civil suit instituted by the applicant herein. Accordingly, the
of the aforesaid is that both the appeals
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....