This judgment dismisses a civil revision petition seeking to quash an order directing the petitioner husband to pay maintenance to the respondent-wife, due to the petitioner's absence and desire to withdraw the petition.
Petitioner directed to pay litigation costs of Rs. 5000/-.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Revision No.6219 of 2008
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.6219 of 2008 Date of Decision:08.05.2009
Harjinder Singh
....petitioner
Versus
Manjit Kaur
.....respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: None for the petitioner
Mr.P.S.Guliani, Advocate for the respondent
RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.
The present revision has been filed by the petitionerhusband challenging the order dated 22.08.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Amritsar, whereby he was directed to pay an amount of Rs.4000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife.
On 12.11.2008, this Court had issued notice of motion only for a limited purpose for exploring the possibility of settlement between the parties. In pursuance of this order, the parties were directed to appear before the Mediation Centre of this Court for an amicable settlement of the dispute vide order dated 24.02.2009. A perusal of the order dated 24.02.2009 would show that the petitioner was directed to pay litigation expenses and 50% of the amount due towards maintenance as fixed vide impugned order to the respondent-wife before the Mediation Centre, of this Court. However, petitioner was not present and in fact counsel for the petitioner stated that he wanted to withdraw the petition. The case was sent
Civil Revision No.6219 of 2008
2
back by the Mediator to this Court taking note of the earlier order passed by this Court.
Today neither counsel for the petitioner, nor the petitioner himself are present in the Court. Thus, I find no alternative but to dismiss this revision petition with costs which are assessed at Rs.5000/-.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
08.05.2009 neenu
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a revision petition for challenging a maintenance order should be discharged when the petitioner is absent and seeks withdrawal.
Harjinder Singh
Manjit Kaur
Rakhe Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
