Petitioner challenged an order striking out his defence in a maintenance suit due to alleged non-payment. The court set aside the impugned order after the petitioner admitted in court that maintenance had been paid.
Order dated 17.09.2010 striking off defence set aside; petitioner given opportunity to lead evidence.
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.
Crl.Rev. No. 2738 of 2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Rev. No. 2738 of 2010
Date of Decision: 18.03.2011
Suraj Kamboj ...Petitioner
Vs.
Anamika Kamboj ...Respondent
BEFORE: HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate, for the respondent.
Ritu Bahri, J.(Oral)
In this revision, challenge is to the order dated 17.09.2010 passed by the learned District Judge (Family Court), Gurgaon, whereby defence of the respondent is struck of on the ground that he did not pay the interim maintenance as per order dated 11.5.2010 to the respondent/wife.
While issuing notice of motion, a statement was made by the petitioner that he had already paid up to date maintenance amounting to Rs,20,500/- to the respondent. Thereafter, despite service the respondent did
Crl.Rev. No. 2738 of 2010
2
not put in appearance. On 11.3.2011, the matter was adjourned for today for arguments. Today no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent.
In view of the statement made in court by the petitioner that the interim maintenance amounting to Rs.20,500/- has already been paid, order dated 17.9.2010 is set aside and the petitioner is given an opportunity to lead his evidence in accordance with law.
(Ritu Bahri) 18.03, 2011 Judge rp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order striking off defence for non-payment of interim maintenance should be set aside when the petitioner admits payment in court.
Whether the petitioner can be granted an opportunity to lead evidence regarding the payment of maintenance.
Suraj Kamboj
Anamika Kamboj
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
