SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Gulshan Kumar vs Paramjit Kaur on 8 April, 2019

FAO-M-205-2014 (OM) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

FAO No. M-205 of 2014 (OM)
Date of Decision: 8.4.2019

Gulshan Kumar …….Appellant

Vs.

Paramjit Kaur ……..Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present: – Ms. Sheena Khanna, Advocate
for the appellant.

Mr. Sanjeev K. Virk, Advocate
for the respondent.

*****

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL)

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated

5.3.2014 by which a petition filed by the respondent-wife under Section 13

of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘Act’ for short) for seeking dissolution of

her marriage by way of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and

desertion has been allowed.

In brief, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on

30.3.1991. They were blessed with two children who are putting up with the

respondent at present. Since the appellant-husband was treating the

respondent-wife with cruelty and had deserted her, therefore, she filed the

petition under Section 13 of the Act for seeking dissolution of her marriage.

The said petition was filed in the year 2009. During the pendency of this

petition, the parties entered into some kind of a compromise on 29.7.2010

1 of 3
28-04-2019 22:09:58 :::
FAO-M-205-2014 (OM) -2-

and it was decided that they would withdraw the cases against each other

except for divorce petition which was pending. On 1.3.2014, the learned

trial Court had struck off the defence of the appellant-husband on account of

non-payment of maintenance. Thereafter, the decree of divorce was passed

on 5.3.2014.

Aggrieved against the said decree, the present appeal has been

flied in which learned counsel for the appellant has admitted that the order

dated 1.3.2014 has not been challenged. It is rather submitted that since the

compromise has been arrived at between the parties on 29.7.2010, therefore,

the appellant was not liable to pay any amount of maintenance.

In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted

that in the said compromise, which took place during the pendency of the

divorce petition, it has been settled between the parties that they would

withdraw all the cases against each other except for the divorce petition,

meaning thereby they had agreed that the divorce petition would continue

after the compromise. It is also submitted that the appellant had not paid the

amount of maintenance awarded by the learned trial Court and ultimately,

the defence of the appellant was struck off.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and after

examining the record, are of the considered opinion that the argument of the

learned counsel for the appellant that the maintenance was not to be paid by

the appellant because there was a compromise on 29.7.2010 is neither

here nor there because it was specifically mentioned in the compromise

that the parties had agreed to withdraw cases against each other except

for the divorce petition and during the pendency of the said divorce

petition, the Court had awarded maintenance pendente lite which was

2 of 3
28-04-2019 22:09:58 :::
FAO-M-205-2014 (OM) -3-

not paid by the appellant-husband, therefore, the defence of the appellant-

husband was struck off vide order dated 1.3.2014 and in the absence of any

defence, the case set-up by the respondent was considered by the learned

trial Court and decree of divorce has been granted. Despite various efforts

made by this Court, during the pendency of this appeal, in regard to the

reunion of the parties by referring the case to the Mediation and

Conciliation Centre of this Court, the settlement could not be arrived at. The

Mediator has reported on 10.8.2015 that the mediation has failed and

thereafter the case was adjourned for hearing of the parties on merits

Since the appellant has not challenged the order dated 1.3.2014,

by which his defence has been struck off, even in this appeal or either by

filing a separate revision itself would show that the appellant had decided

not to pay the maintenance to the respondent-wife and in the absence

thereof, there is no error committed by the learned trial Court in striking off

the defence of the appellant. No other point has been raised.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find

any reason to interfere in this appeal for the purpose of setting aside the

impugned order passed against the appellant.

The appeal is dismissed.

(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
JUDGE

(HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
April 08, 2019 JUDGE
Gurpreet

Whether speaking /reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No

3 of 3
28-04-2019 22:09:58 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation