In this revision petition, the petitioner-wife challenged a lower court order dismissing her application to correct the name of her daughter in a divorce decree. The application was filed over two years after the ex parte decree. The Court held there was no lis regarding the name in the original divorce proceedings and dismissed the revision.
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.
C.R.No.317 of 2011 #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R.No.317 of 2011
Date of Decision: 29.11.2011
Manjeet Kaur
....Petitioner
Versus
Jaspal Singh
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
JASWANT SINGH, J
By filing the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioner-wife has laid challenge to the impugned order dated 8.11.2010 (P.7) passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Nawanshahr vide which her application for correction of the name of her daughter in the judgment dated 27.8.2007 has been dismissed.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-wife filed a divorce petition bearing HMA No.100 of 2007 against the respondenthusband, which was allowed ex parte and decree of divorce was granted and marriage between the parties was dissolved vide judgment dated 27.8.2007 passed by the learned Family Court. Thereafter, an
C.R.No.317 of 2011 #2#
application was moved by the petitioner-wife for correction of the name of her daughter from “Mandeep Kaur” to “Husanpreet Kaur” but the same has been dismissed, hence the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the prayer of the petitioner before the Family Court was only correction of the name of her daughter, which was inadvertent and not intentional and in case the same is not rectified, the petitioner and her daughter shall suffer an irreparable loss.
Despite service of the respondent-husband by way of affixation, none has appeared on his behalf.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition and the same deserves dismissal.
It is not in dispute that ex parte judgment and decree was passed by the learned Family Court in favour of the petitioner-wife on 27.8.2007 and the present application for correction of the name of her daughter was filed on 12.11.2009 i.e after a period of more than two years. Moreover, a perusal of decree dated 27.8.2007 (P.1) clearly reveals that the controversy before the learned Family Court was regarding the dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 between the parties, which was dissolved and there was no dispute with regard to the name of the daughter of the petitioner-wife, although the petitioner is very heavily relying upon the documents appended with the petition i.e
C.R.No.317 of 2011
#3#
Ration Card, Birth Certificate and Matriculation Certificate to show that the name of her daughter is “Husanpreet Kaur” and not “Mandeep Kaur”.
Be that as it may, in the divorce petition, the controversy was only regarding dissolution of marriage and the same has been decided by the learned Family Court. There was no lis between the parties with regard to the name of the daughter of the petitioner-wife. In case, the petitioner or her daughter has any grievance, they can seek their remedy before the appropriate forum as per law.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 8.11.2010 (P.7) passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Nawanshahr while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Dismissed.
November 29, 2011 manoj
( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere under Article 227 with a lower court order dismissing an application for correction of a child's name filed more than two years after the ex parte divorce decree.
Whether supplementary evidence regarding the child's correct name justifies reopening the decree on the ground of inadvertence.
Whether a dispute regarding a child's name in a post-decree correction application constitutes a valid controversy warranting judicial intervention under constitutional writ jurisdiction.
Manjeet Kaur
Jaspal Singh
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
