Remanded

Gauri Chanana v. Rajiv Chanana

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Mar 2009CR/1467/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Civil Revision No. 1467 of 2009, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana set aside a vague trial court order regarding maintenance arrears deposits. The court directed the trial court to pass a clear order on payment specifics and observations on striking off the respondent's defence.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside and the trial court is directed to pass a clear order regarding maintenance payment and strike off defence observations.

Gauri Chanana Vs Rajiv Chanana — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Civil Revision No. 1467 of 2009

¶3

Date of decision: March 18, 2009

Gauri Chanana

... Petitioner

vs.

Rajiv Chanana

... Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal

¶10

Present: Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

A.N. Jindal, J (oral)

¶12

Heard.

¶13

On the application dated 3.6.2008, filed by the petitioner for striking off the defence of the respondent Rajiv Chanana, who is the petitioner in the application under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the ground of non payment of arrears of maintenance and therein, the trial court vide its order dated 25.2.2009 directed as under :-

¶14

“Heard. Keeping in view that the revision petition against the order of maintenance pendent elite is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. No stay order has been passed. Moreover, substantial sum of arrears of maintenance pendent elite has been paid by the petitioner and he has further been directed to deposit Rs.75,000/- on the next date of hearing. Accordingly, the said application is disposed of with the directions that part of arrears be continued to be deposited on each and every date of hearing. Meanwhile the case shall proceed for the purpose of evidence. Petitioner has placed on record his affidavit. Now to come up on 30.3.2009 for depositing the payment of part maintenance pendent elite as well as for evidence of the petitioner.”

¶15

Civil Revision No. 1467 of 2009

¶16

-2-

¶17

¶18

The order appears to be vague one inasmuch as, it has not been mentioned as to what part of the arrears are to be deposited on each and every date of hearing and how much was due against the respondent Rajiv Chanana and what was to be deposited on 30.3.2009. Thus, the present order suffers from ambiguities and deserves to be modified.

¶19

Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the trial court is directed to pass a clear order regarding the payment of maintenance and also make observations if defence of the petitioner could be struck off for non payment of maintenance.

¶20

March 18, 2009 deepak

¶21

(A.N. Jindal) Judge

Gauri Chanana v. Rajiv Chanana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gauri Chanana v. Rajiv Chanana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rukmani Devi Vs Raj Kishan Saini

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Punnjab

Bharawan Bai Vs State Ofpb.

Shakuntla Devi Vs Ratibhan

Jagjit Kaur and Ors. Vs Amarjeet Singh and Ors.

Raj Kumar Vs P O Mact, Karnal