Revision petition challenging an interim maintenance order was allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner due to the completion of proceedings via mutual consent divorce and payment of agreed alimony.
Dismissed as withdrawn.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.
CRR(F)-192-2016 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
220 CRR(F)-192-2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.11.2024
Sampat Si n gh @ Monu .… Petitioner
Versus
Savita an d another .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present: - Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate f or the petitioner.
Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advoc a te for the respondents.
NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Challenge in the present re v ision petition is to the order dated 08. 0 4.2016, passed by the learned Family Court, Rohtak in a proceedin g under Section 125 Cr.P.C., dir e cting the petitioner-husband to pay interim maintenance @ Rs.5000/per month to respondent No. 2-minor d a ughter from the date of applica t ion.
At the very outset, learned co u nsel for the petitioner-husband submits t h at the parties have already been granted divorce by way of mutual consent under Section 13-B of t h e Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, vide judg m ent and decree dated 27.08.2018. A copy of judgment and decree da t ed 27.08.2018 filed by learne d counsel for the petitioner in Court tod a y, is taken on record. It is submitted that the petitionerhusband h ad also paid the entire agr e ed amount of Rs.10,00,000/towards p ermanent alimony to respond e nt No. 1-wife. Further, it is
RISHU KATARIA 2024.11.19 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
CRR(F)-192-2016 (O&M) -2-
informed b y learned counsel for the petiti o ner that as per his instructions responden t No. 1-wife has expired.
Learned counsel appearing f o r the respondents submits that he has no instructions with regard to af o resaid submissions of learned counsel f o r the petitioner as, he has fail e d to establish contact with his clients.
In view of the above, lear n ed counsel for the petitioner submits t h at he may be permitted to withdraw the instant revision petition.
Permitted to do so.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
Pending application(s), if any , shall also stand disposed of.
14.11.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
RISHU KATARIA 2024.11.19 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sampat Singh @ Monu
Savita
another
Nidhi Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
