SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Tek Chand vs Neelam on 17 July, 2018

CR No.3394 of 2018 1


CR No.3394 of 2018
Date of Decision: 17.07.2018

Tek Chand
…. Petitioner
… Respondent


Present: Mr. Satbir Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.



[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


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 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2021 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