CR No.3394 of 2018 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.3394 of 2018
Date of Decision: 17.07.2018
Tek Chand
…. Petitioner
Versus
Neelam
… Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Present: Mr. Satbir Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)
[1]. This revision petition has been preferred by the
petitioner against the order dated 11.04.2018 passed by the
Additional District Judge, Sirsa, dismissing the objections filed
by the petitioner in the execution under Order 21 Rule 11 read
with Section 28A of Hindu Marriage Act for enforcement of order
dated 10.11.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sirsa
in the application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act.
[2]. Vide the aforesaid order, maintenance pendente lite
@ Rs.2500/- per month was awarded in favour of the
respondent/wife from the date of application i.e. 06.02.2014.
[3]. It appears from the record that at one point of time
i.e. at the time of first motion, some statement of the parties was
1 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 22-07-2018 15:00:14 :::
CR No.3394 of 2018 2
recorded, but later on, the said statement was diluted and the
petitioner was held liable to make payment of maintenance vide
order dated 30.05.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge,
Sirsa. The judgment debtor/petitioner Tek Chand had appeared
in person and stated that he will come present on the next date
of hearing along with payment. His statement was recorded and
the case was adjourned to 14.07.2017 for consideration. The
statement of the petitioner made on 17.05.2017 was also to the
effect that he will come present along with the amount on the
adjourned date, otherwise he will go in jail. Statement of learned
counsel for the respondent dated 21.07.2017 in lieu of
opportunity for arguing the application cannot be read over and
above the scope of said order.
[4]. Concededly, the petitioner has no documentary proof
of making payment of arrears of maintenance to the respondent
except to allege that an amount of Rs.40,000/- was paid outside
the Court. No such amount was recorded in any order of the
Court, nor the same finds mention in the statement of the
petitioner at any point of time.
[5]. Considering the nature of proceedings on record, I
find no reason to differ with the impugned order dated
11.04.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Sirsa. This
revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Executing Court
2 of 3
22-07-2018 15:00:15 :::
CR No.3394 of 2018 3
would be at liberty to take recourse to lawful action against the
petitioner.
July 17, 2018 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Prince JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
22-07-2018 15:00:15 :::