Jaspreet Kaur @ Seema vs Gurpreet Singh on 30 May, 2017

CR No.8137 of 2016 1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CR No.8137 of 2016
Date of decision:30.5.2017
Jaspreet Kaur @ Seema

…Petitioner

Versus

Gurpreet Singh …Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

Present: Mr.Manish K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.K.Bokolia, Advocate for the respondent.

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral)

Feeling aggrieved against the impugned order dated 20.9.2016

passed by the learned matrimonial court, dismissing her application under

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (`the Act’ for short), during the

pendency of the divorce petition, filed by the respondent-husband,

petitioner-wife has approached this Court by way of present civil revision

petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside

the impugned order.

Notice of motion was issued.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

A bare perusal of the impugned order would show that the

learned matrimonial court did not advert to the merits of the case and

dismissed the application of the petitioner-wife only on the ground that she

did not deny the allegation of adultery levelled against her by her husband.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has specifically

denied this allegation in her written statement filed to the divorce petition.

1 of 3
09-06-2017 22:01:11 :::
CR No.8137 of 2016 2

He has been found justified in contending that petitioner-wife was not

expected to take any averments about the said allegation of adultery in her

application under Section 24 of the Act.

It is also pertinent to note here that the learned matrimonial

READ  Anil Maarwal & Anr vs State on 23 May, 2017

court itself has recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner was

legally wedded wife of the respondent. In such a situation, the learned

matrimonial court ought to have decided the application moved by the

petitioner-wife under Section 24 of the Act, on its merits by passing an

appropriate order, in accordance with law. Having said that, this Court feels

no hesitation to conclude that since the impugned order has not been passed

on merits, it cannot be sustained.

Once the learned matrimonial court itself has recorded that the

petitioner-wife was legally wedded wife, her claim for maintenance

pendente lite ought to have been decided on merits and not on the allegation

of adultery against her. Further, it is only an allegation against the

petitioner which is yet to be proved by the respondent by leading cogent and

convincing evidence. In such a situation, the learned matrimonial court was

expected to decide the application on merits by passing an appropriate

order, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained, for this reason

also.

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case

noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the

considered view that since the impugned order has been found suffering

from patent illegality, it cannot be sustained and accordingly, impugned

order dated 20.9.2016 is hereby set aside. Matter is remanded to the learned

2 of 3
09-06-2017 22:01:13 :::
CR No.8137 of 2016 3

matrimonial court with a direction to reconsider the application moved by

the petitioner-wife under Section 24 of the Act and decide the same on

READ  Dhananjay Kumar @ Dhananjay Kumar ... vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 1 August, 2017

merits, by passing an appropriate order, in accordance with law. Let the

application of the petitioner be decided at an early date.

Resultantly, with the above-said observations made and

directions issued, the present civil revision petition stands allowed,

however, with no order as to costs.

30.5.2017 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK)
mks JUDGE

Whether Speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No

3 of 3
09-06-2017 22:01:13 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *