Dismissed

Neha Thapar Alias Neha v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Jan 2021CWP/978/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of a writ petition seeking directions to stop alienation of property and maintain status quo. The Court observed that the petitioner already has a pending appeal against the order granting maintenance on the same property and thus relegated her to the remedy available before the Additional District Judge.

What the court decided

AI extract

Neha Thapar Alias Neha Vs State of Punjab… — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

103

¶2

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No. 978 of 2021

¶4

Date of Decision: 15.01.2021

¶5

Neha Thapar alias Neha

¶6

... Petitioner(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and Others

¶9

... Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

¶11

Present: Mr. Swarn Tiwana, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

¶13

The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-

¶14

“i) lssue appropriate writ order or direction especially in the nature of nature of Mandamus directing the official respondents to take action against the private respondents who are alienating the property in spite of the fact that the stay has been granted by the Ld courts below and further prayed to issue directions to the respondents No. 1 to 4 to take strict action against the officials as well as the private persons who in connivance with each other are not stopping the construction as well as execution of sale deed in spite of fact that the petitioner obtained the stay and other orders on the property in her favour from the Courts;

¶15

ii) Further prayed for issuance of directions to the respondent No.3 to decide the representation dated 21.12.2020 (Annexure P-7) given by the petitioner to the respondent No.3

¶16

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2021.01.15 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

Civil Writ Petition No. 978 of 2021 2

¶18

as till date no action is taken on the said representation by the respondent No. 3 and the same is lying unattended in his office. iii) Further prayed that during the pendency of present petition, the status quo may kindly be granted with regard to the property in dispute and construction going on as the concerned respondents are not taking the Court seriously in spite of the order passed in favour of the petitioner”.

¶19

The petitioner is the wife of respondent No.11 and daughter-inlaw of respondent No.12. There is a marital discord between the petitioner and her husband. She filed a petition for grant of maintenance pendente-lite which was decreed on 20.07.2017. It was directed that she would be entitled to maintenance at the rate of ₹ 5,000/- per month from the date of institution of the suit and the same shall constitute first charge on the property specified in the order. Para 8 of the judgment reads as under:-

¶20

“Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion and on the basis of unrebutted evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and same is hereby partly decreed with costs only against defendant no.1 for maintenance @ 5,000/- per month from the date of institution of suit. The₹ same shall constitute first charge on the property of defendant no. 1 i.e. 13/32 share in property comprised in khewat no. 480/454, 449, 447, khatouni no. 996, khasra no. 7//6/1, 7/1, 14, 15, 16/1, 17/1 total measuring 24 kanal. It is however, made clear that the charge created above shall not effect the right/title/interest of any third party acquired prior to filing of

¶21

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2021.01.15 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

Civil Writ Petition No. 978 of 2021 3

¶23

instant suit”.

¶24

The petitioner is alleged to have filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, which is stated to be pending. On 31.10.2018, the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib stayed the operation of the order passed by the learned lower Court and restrained the respondents from making further alienation and parting with possession of the property to any third person.

¶25

As noticed from the reliefs sought, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for similar reliefs. The petitioner cannot be permitted to avail two parallel remedies.

¶26

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the petitioner is relegated to the remedy before the Court of learned Additional District Judge.

¶27

With the observations made above, the present writ petition is disposed of.

¶28

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge

¶29

January 15, 2021 “DK”

¶30

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶31

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2021.01.15 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Neha Thapar Alias Neha v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Neha Thapar Alias Neha v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sangeeta Sahni Vs State of Haryana and Others

Dinesh Kumar Vs Isha Rani

Amandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Vanita Dhir Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Manoj Paswan and Anr. Vs Appellate Authority Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 and Ors.

Sanjiv Kumar Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Others