The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging a maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC. The court presumed the petitioner was not seriously interested as she remained unrepresented for three hearings and did not appear on the final date despite previous notice of motion.
The revision petition is dismissed.
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.
CRR(F)-196-2020 -1-
IN THE HI G H COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
213 CR R (F)-196-2020
Dat e of Decision: 11.11.2024
Sanjeev K u mar
.… Petitioner
Versus
State of H a ryana and another .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present: - Ms. Nevadita Malik, Advocat e for the petitioners (through video conferencing).
Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, H aryana.
NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Challenge in the present revis i on petition is to the order dated 29.04.201 9 , passed by the learned Addi t ional Principal Judge (Family Court), A m abala, in a proceeding under S e ction 125 Cr.P.C., directing the petitioner- h usband to pay final maintenance to the respondent-wife @ Rs.5000/per month; besides a sum o f Rs.3300/- towards litigation expenses.
The matter pertains to the ye a r 2020 and notice of motion in the presen t case was issued by a co-ord i nate Bench of this Court vide order date d 02.03.2020, which reads as fol l ows:-
CRM No.6121 of 2020
For the reasons stated i n the application, delay of 201 days in filing of the revision p e tition is condoned. Application is allowed.
CRR(F) No.196 of 2020
Counsel for the petit i oner would contend that the respondent-wife was not mai n taining the minor children at the time of filing of the ap p lication and custody of minor children was only handed over to her on 10.01.2018.
RISHU KATARIA 2024.11.12 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
CRR(F)-196-2020 -2-
Consequently, he cannot be fastened with the liability o f maintaining them for the peri o d he was looking after them. Notice of motion to th e respondents for 29.06.2020 to that limited extent only.
In the meantime, paym e nt of ₹2000/- i.e.₹1000/- each for two minor children is sta y ed from the date of filing of the application till 10.01.2018, t h e date on which custody was given to the respondent-wife. From 11.01.2018 onwards, the petitioner would continue to make payment of ₹5000/- per month towards maintenanc e as awarded by the Court below.”
Thereafter, the matter was lis t ed for hearing 04 times i.e. on 11.01.202 3 , 19.07.2023, 12.03.2024 and 2 3.09.2024, out of which on 03 dates on 1 1 .01.2023, 19.07.2023 and 12.0 3 .2024, the petitioner had gone un-represe n ted; whereas on the last date of hearing i.e. 23.09.2024, the matter was adjourned at the request of lear n ed counsel for the petitioner.
Today, learned counsel appe a ring for the petitioner through video con fe rencing submits that she has n o t been able to establish contact with the p e titioner, despite her best efforts.
In view of the above, it ca n safely be presumed that the petitioner is not seriously interested in pursuing the present revision petition.
Thus, the instant revision peti t ion is dismissed.
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
RISHU KATARIA 2024.11.12 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petition should be dismissed due to lack of active pursuit by the petitioner.
Whether the petitioner can be considered not seriously interested in pursuing the revision petition.
Whether the delay in filing the revision petition should be condoned.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanjeev Kumar
State of Haryana and another
Nidhi Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
