Revision petition challenged a Family Court order directing maintenance to wife and minor son under Section 125 CrPC. Counsel for the petitioner stated he had no instructions and sought withdrawal; the High Court permitted the revision to be withdrawn.
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.
IN THE H IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
218 CR R (F)-365-2022
Dat e of Decision: 04.11.2024
Harbhajan Singh .… Petitioner
Versus
Manjit Ka u r and others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present: - Mr. PKS Phoolka, Advocate fo r the petitioner.
NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Challenge in the present revis i on petition is to the order dated 15.02.202 0 , passed by the learned F a mily Court, Bathinda, in a proceedin g under Section 125 Cr.P.C., dir e cting the petitioner to pay final maintenan c e @ Rs.6500/- per month ( i.e. Rs.5000/- per month to responden t No. 1-wife and Rs.1500/- pe r month to respondent No. 3- minor son from the date of application til l 14.02.2020 and Rs.4000/- per month to r espondent No. 1-wife and Rs. 2 500/- per month to respondent No. 3 w.e. f . the date of order i.e. 15.02.20 2 0).
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he h a s no instructions in the matte r and accordingly, he may be permitted t o withdraw the instant revision p etition.
Permitted to do so.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
04.11.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
RISHU KATARIA 2024.11.04 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Harbhajan Singh
Manjit Kaur
Nidhi Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
