Dismissed

Kuldeep Singh v. Raj Bala

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Nov 2011CR/7101/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition filed under Article 226 challenging the trial court's refusal to decide two applications before the main divorce hearing. The High Court upheld the trial court, calling the petitioner's delay tactics improper, and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed upholding the impugned order. No fault found in disposing of applications with the main case.

Kuldeep Singh Vs Raj Bala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CR No.7101/2011 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

¶3

CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No.7101/2011 Date of decision: 21.11.2011.

¶5

Kuldeep Singh

¶6

....................Petitioner

¶7

¶8

Rajbala

¶9

.....................Respondent

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh

¶11

Present: Mr.PS Jakhar,Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral)

¶13

Petitioner-husband has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the order dated 5.9.2011 (P1) whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak has fixed the divorce petition filed by the respondent wife and two applications filed by petitioner-husband for arguments on 19.9.2011.

¶14

Briefly stated the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 12.3.1995. It is alleged that after her marriage the behaviour of the respondent wife changed towards the petitioner and his family members as she used to pick up quarrel over trivial issues and threatened to commit suicide and that she started residing separately. Thereafter, petitioner husband filed a petition under Section

¶15

CR No.7101/2011 2

¶16

9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) for restitution of conjugal rights in which a decree dated 14.6.2003 was passed in favour of the petitioner. It is alleged that thereafter respondent-wife joined the company of the petitioner-husband but her conduct and behaviour remained unchanged and she again left her matrimonial home without any rhyme and reason and also filed a petition under Section 13(1A)(ii) of the Act. During the pendency of the aforesaid divorce petition, it is alleged that respondent-wife contracted second marriage with one Balwan Singh on 15.9.2006 without getting divorce from the petitioner and also became pregnant from the loins of said Balwan Singh. The petitioner is alleged to have filed a criminal complaint in this regard against the respondent-wife and six others which is pending in the Court of learned JMIC,Rohtak. It is alleged that on coming to know about the said facts on 28.3.2009, the petitioner filed an application for production of additional evidence stating therein regarding the contracting of second marriage by the respondent wife and accordingly sought permission to lead additional evidence. Besides that petitioner also filed an application for medico legal examination of the respondent wife. The said application were filed on 31.3.2009 and 7.10.2009 respectively. Vide order dated 19.8.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak both the said applications were ordered to be heard at the time of final arguments in the divorce petition filed by the respondent wife. The said order was never challenged by the petitioner-husband.

¶17

CR No.7101/2011 3

¶18

It is apparent that on 5.9.2011 counsel for both sides were present. While the counsel for the respondent-wife was ready to advance arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner-husband insisted that firstly aforesaid two applications be decided. That request of the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband was declined by the learned Presiding Officer vide impugned order dated 5.9.2011.

¶19

It transpires from a reading of the impugned order that the counsel for respondent did not appear on 25.8.2010, 11.10.2010, 27.10.2010 and 5.10.2010 and instead petitioner-husband sought adjournments for arguments on merit. Thereafter on 2.12.2010 counsel for the petitioner-husband moved an application under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC for deleting one issue and thereafter the matter remained pending for reply on the said application and consideration. It further transpires from the impugned order that again on 24.3.2011 the counsel for the petitioner-husband did not appear and the case was adjourned for many dates and ultimately on 10.8.2011 the case was listed for arguments on 5.9.2011. While rejecting the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband to dispose of the aforesaid two applications before advancing arguments on merit in the main petition, it has been observed by the learned Presiding Officer that on 27.7.2010 the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband had made a statement in the Court that he would advance the arguments on 4.8.2010 on merit and on application dated 21.7.2010 and instead of arguing the case on merits the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband again started insisting on

¶20

CR No.7101/2011 4

¶21

disposing of the applications first. In the penultimate para of the impugned order the learned Presiding Officer has noticed that now counsel for the petitioner-husband has stated that he would argue on main petition as well as on application on the next date of hearing i.e. 19.9.2011.

¶22

The divorce petition was filed by the respondent-wife in the year 2005. Already almost six years have elapsed and still the petitioner-husband instead of getting decided the divorce petition is insisting upon decision on the aforesaid two applications, which the learned Court has time and again assured that the same would be considered and decided at the time of final hearing. In my opinion, the absence of the counsel for the petitioner-husband on many dates, as noticed above, and insisting on deciding the applications first, is nothing but a delaying tactic which has rightly been rejected by the learned Presiding Officer. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband has already agreed to argue on the main petition on the next date of hearing i.e. 19.9.2011.

¶23

In view of the above, in my opinion, the case being an old one the learned trial court has rightly decided to dispose of the applications alongwith the main case and no fault can be found with the same.

¶24

Dismissed.

¶25

(Jaswant Singh) Ju dge

¶26

21.11.2011 joshi

Kuldeep Singh v. Raj Bala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Singh v. Raj Bala

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

Gurdit Singh @ Gurdita Singh Vs Nirmal Rani @ Nirmala Rani

Mange Ram Vs Praskash and Ors.

Vidhyawati and Another Vs Manoj and Others

Tehal Singh and Anr. Vs Avtar Singh and Ors.

Jit Singh and Ors. Vs Avtar Singh

Ram Pal Vs Surender Bakshi