CR No.8137 of 2016 1
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT
CR No.8137 of 2016
Date of decision:30.5.2017
Jaspreet Kaur @ Seema
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
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
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
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)
Whether Speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
09-06-2017 22:01:13 :::