Appeal challenging an order attaching property for maintenance recovery was allowed. The court set aside the impugned order upon appellant's claim that the entire maintenance dues were already paid, a stand not controverted by the respondent.
Impugned order dated 10.1.1991 set aside; appeal disposed of.
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.
EFA No. 326 of 1991
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
EFA No. 326 of 1991 (O&M)
Date of decision : 3.8.2012
Sanwalia
.. Appellant
vs
Sham Lal and another
... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. C. B. Goel, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate, for respondent no. 2.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
The appellant, who is father of Sham Lal (husband of Dhanwanti), has approached this court impugning the order dated 10.1.1991 passed by the learned court below dismissing the objections filed by him in execution whereby his property was sought to be attached for realization of ` 5,170/- plus costs, which was due from the son of the petitioner on account of maintenance payable to the respondent-wife.
Learned counsel for the appellant placed on record an order passed by the learned ACJM, Kurkushetra, dated 20.12.2011 whereby execution petition filed by the respondent-wife for recovery of maintenance in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., was dismissed as withdrawn as the amount had been paid by the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the entire amount of maintenance has already been paid by the appellant.
The aforesaid facts were confronted to the learned counsel for the respondent-wife, who had sought time to ascertain this from the respondent-wife.
Learned counsel for the respondent-wife submitted that despite repeated communications, the respondent-wife has not contacted him.
EFA No. 326 of 1991
-2-
Considering the stand taken by learned counsel for the appellant, which was not controverted by learned counsel for the respondent-wife, in my opinion, when it is claimed by the appellant that entire amount due to the respondent-wife has been paid, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.1.1991 is set aside.
The appeal stands disposed of.
3.8.2012 vs
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal regarding attachment of property for maintenance recovery should be allowed when the amount is claimed to be paid.
Whether the impugned order dismissing objections in execution proceedings should be set aside upon claim of full payment.
Whether the appellant's claim of full maintenance payment, uncontroverted by counsel, warrants disposal in appellant's favour.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanwalia
Sham Lal
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
