Manveen Kaur Vs Rajdeep Singh and Another

Respondent No.1 – Rajdeep Singh – present in person with Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with Ms. Bhavi Kapur, Advocate and Mr. Akash Gehlawat, Advocate.

¶10

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

¶11

Respondent No.1 – Rajdeep Singh – is present in person, who has been identified by his counsel and by his Aadhar Card, a photocopy of which is retained on the file. Petitioner – Manveen Kaur – is also present in person, who has also been identified by her counsel and by her Aadhar card, a photocopy of which is retained on the file.

¶12

After arguing for some time, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that as per the site plan, which has been placed on record, portion marked red in colour is being offered to the petitioner which she has refused to accept on the ground that she wants to be put in possession of the same portion from where she was dispossessed. Learned senior counsel has further contended that though not admitting the

¶13

AMAN JAIN 2026.01.27 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶14

COCP-1677-2023 (O&M)

¶15

-2-

¶16

claim of the petitioner that since the ingress and egress of both the portions is common, there would be continued litigation between the parties and as such respondent No.1 is willing to offer rent for alternate accommodation to the petitioner. Learned senior counsel has further stated that ₹70,000 is being paid per month as maintenance to the son and ₹50,000 per month to the petitioner and in addition respondent No.1 is willing to pay an amount of ₹50,000 per month for alternate accommodation from the alleged date of dispossession i.e. w.e.f. 24.05.2023, though the learned senior counsel states that the fact of dispossession is disputed. Learned senior counsel, however, states that this is not an admission of the allegations made and this is de hors of all the allegations that have been made in the various litigations pending before the Courts where the same are going on. To show his bona fide , respondent No.1 is willing to pay the above amount of ₹50,000 per month w.e.f. 24.05.2023. 50% of the total amount would be paid within a period of one month from today, i.e. on or before 21.02.2026 and the remaining 50% would be paid within one month thereafter, i.e. on or before 21.03.2026. Learned senior counsel would further submit that respondent No.1 will continue to pay the aforesaid amount regularly in future as well.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner, states that the petitioner is agreeable to the statement made by respondent No.1. Learned counsel, however, states that the son’s right should not be affected in any manner and he should have his right to visit his father and as well as all his rights as per law. Learned counsel further, on instructions, states that the above offer made by respondent No.1 is acceptable

¶18

AMAN JAIN 2026.01.27 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶19

COCP-1677-2023 (O&M) -3-

¶20

to the petitioner, the rider being that this settlement is only qua her and respondent No.1 and would not in any manner be treated as a statement of compromise on behalf of the son.

¶21

Statements of both the parties to the aforesaid effect have been recorded separately today in Court.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid settlement arrived at between the parties and their statements recorded separately today in Court, the present contempt petition is disposed off. Respondent No.1 shall pay 50% of the amount of ₹50,000 per month, as stated above, towards the alternate accommodation w.e.f. 24.05.2023 within a period of one month from today i.e. on or before 21.02.2026 and the remaining 50% within a period of one month thereafter i.e. on or before 21.03.2026. Respondent No.1 will continue to pay the aforesaid amount regularly in future as well till the pendency of the litigation. It is made clear that this settlement is only qua the petitioner and respondent No.1 and would not in any manner be treated as a statement of compromise on behalf of the son and the son should have all his rights as per the law. The parties shall remain bound by their statements made before this Court today. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

¶23

It is clarified that the present order has been passed without prejudice to the rights of the parties in their respective litigations either initiated or defended by them.

¶24

22.01.2026 (ALKA SARIN) Aman Jain JUDGE

¶25

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶26

AMAN JAIN 2026.01.27 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

Manveen Kaur v. Rajdeep Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manveen Kaur v. Rajdeep Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hsiidc Vs Naurangpal Singh @ Narang Pal and Ors.

Hsiidc Vs Kamal Singh and Ors.

Hsiidc Vs Janak Singh and Ors.

Assa Singh Vs Ravinder Kaur

Vijay Ahuja Vs Pokhar Mal & Ors.

Sinderjeet Kaur and Anr. Vs Sheo Ram and Ors.