Disposed

Sukhgeet Kaur v. Rupinder Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jul 2009CR/3570/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a civil revision petition under Article 227 seeking quashing of an order allowing amendment of replication. Court accepted counsel statement that mutual consent divorce decree rendered petition infructuous but granted liberty to revive if false.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as infructuous; liberty granted to move application for revival if previous statement found incorrect.

Sukhgeet Kaur Vs Rupinder Singh — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CR No. 3570 of 2008

¶3

Date of Decision: 16.7.2009

Sukhgeet Kaur

....Petitioner.

Versus

Rupinder Singh

...Respondent.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.

¶10

PRESENT: Ms. Lovejinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Bawa, Advocate for the respondent.

¶11

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

¶12

In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-wife who is respondent in the divorce proceedings initiated by her husband, has sought the setting aside of the order dated 30.5.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the application filed by the respondent-husband under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the replication was allowed.

¶13

Learned counsel for the respondent states that now the marriage between the parties has been dissolved as a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has been passed in favour of the parties. He further states that in view thereof, the present petition which is an outcome of the earlier petition for divorce filed by the husband on the ground of cruelty has been

¶14

C.R. No. 3570 of 2008

¶15

-2-

¶16

rendered infructuous and may be disposed of as such.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that she has no instructions with regard to the aforesaid facts. She, however, states that the present petition may be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous but liberty may be granted to the petitioner to move an application for revival of the petition in case the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent is found to be incorrect.

¶18

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. It shall, however, be open to the petitioner to move an application for revival of the petition in case the statement made by the counsel for the respondent is found to be incorrect.

¶19

July 16, 2009 gbs

¶20

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

Sukhgeet Kaur v. Rupinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhgeet Kaur v. Rupinder Singh

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

Baldev Krishan Vs Bank of India and Ors.

Mohit Kumar Vs Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Gurdial Singh Vs Joginder Singh @ Budhu & Ors.

Jalour Singh and Anr. Vs Balwinder Singh and Ors.

Khazan Chand and Ors. Vs Punjab Wakf Board Ambala Cantt.

Kartar Ram Vs Gurmej Ram etc.