CR-8118-2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 210 Simarjit Singh Manjit Kaur CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Constitution of India is for setting aside the impugned order dated 03.12.2011 (Annexure P Kurukshetra, whereby the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 maintenance pay interim maintenance @ besides a sum of hearing after the year 2012. following order was passed by a co 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-8118 Date of Decision: Simarjit Singh Versus Manjit Kaur CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA None. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the impugned order dated 03.12.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned District Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘HMA’) by the respondent maintenance pendente lite was allowed; and the petitioner was directed t pay interim maintenance @ ₹4000/- per month to respondent besides a sum of ₹2200/- towards litigation expenses. The matter pertains to the year 2011 and has come up for hearing after the year 2012. On 03.02.2012, when this case was listed for h following order was passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court: “Misc. application is allowed. The main case is preponed from February 27, 2012 to today. In a petition filed by respondent wife for divorce while allowing her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, maintenance pendente lite at the rate of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 8118-2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.04.2025 .… Petitioner .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Prayer in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the impugned order dated passed by the learned District Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu y the respondent-wife for grant of and the petitioner was directed to per month to respondent-wife, towards litigation expenses. The matter pertains to the year 2011 and has come up for On 03.02.2012, when this case was listed for hearing, ordinate Bench of this Court:- “Misc. application is allowed. The main case is preponed from February 27, 2012 to today. In a petition filed by respondent wife for divorce while allowing her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Prayer in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the impugned order dated passed by the learned District Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu for grant of o wife, The matter pertains to the year 2011 and has come up for earing, “Misc. application is allowed. The main case is In a petition filed by respondent wife for divorce while allowing her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, maintenance pendente lite at the rate of RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.03 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-8118-2011 (O&M) despite the case having been called twice. 2011 (O&M) -2- Rs.4000/- per month along with litigation expenses of Rs.2200/- stand granted by the tria order. I have considered the facts and circumstances of this case. As per the statutory provisions of Section 21 B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, every petition under Hindu Marrige Act is to be concluded within a period of six months date of service of the petitioner on the respondent. Counsel informs that the trial is at the stage of production of evidence of the respondent wife. Amount of maintenance pendente lite of Rs.4000/ if presumed to be slightly excessive but temporary period which could be approximately six months or so. In view of this prima facie, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order but in view of the offer of the petitioner that he is ready to pay lumpsum main the respondent wife and amicably settle the dispute, I deem it appropriate in the interest of justice to issue notice to the respondent so that said offer can be put to the respondent wife. Notice of motion for March 29, 2012 to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre subject to petitioner’s paying a sum of Rs.20000/ litigation/ travelling expenses on the said date before the Mediation Centre. Report of the Mediation Centre be submitted to this Court for April 20,2012. In case a sum of Rs.20000/ Mediation Centre, this petition will be deemed to have been dismissed.” There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, despite the case having been called twice. per month along with litigation expenses of stand granted by the trial Court vide impugned I have considered the facts and circumstances of this case. As per the statutory provisions of Section 21 B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, every petition under Hindu Marrige Act is to be concluded within a period of six months from the date of service of the petitioner on the respondent. Counsel informs that the trial is at the stage of production of evidence of the respondent wife. Amount of maintenance pendente lite of Rs.4000/- even if presumed to be slightly excessive but it would be only for a temporary period which could be approximately six months or so. In view of this prima facie, I do not find any ground to in the impugned order but in view of the offer of the is ready to pay lumpsum maintenance to the respondent wife and amicably settle the dispute, I deem it appropriate in the interest of justice to issue notice to the respondent so that said offer can be put to the respondent Notice of motion for March 29, 2012 to appear before he Mediation and Conciliation Centre subject to petitioner’s a sum of Rs.20000/- to the respondent wife as litigation/ travelling expenses on the said date before the Report of the Mediation Centre be submitted to this In case a sum of Rs.20000/- is not paid before the Mediation Centre, this petition will be deemed to have been There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, per month along with litigation expenses of l Court vide impugned I have considered the facts and circumstances of this case. As per the statutory provisions of Section 21 B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, every petition under Hindu Marrige from the Counsel informs that the trial is at the stage of even it would be only for a temporary period which could be approximately six months or so. In view of this prima facie, I do not find any ground to in the impugned order but in view of the offer of the tenance to the respondent wife and amicably settle the dispute, I deem it appropriate in the interest of justice to issue notice to the respondent so that said offer can be put to the respondent Notice of motion for March 29, 2012 to appear before he Mediation and Conciliation Centre subject to petitioner’s to the respondent wife as litigation/ travelling expenses on the said date before the Report of the Mediation Centre be submitted to this is not paid before the Mediation Centre, this petition will be deemed to have been RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.03 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-8118-2011 (O&M) deposited 03.02.2012, till date. petitioner through his letter dated 31.07.2024 had also informed during the pendency of instant revision petition, the petition filed by the respondent 02.04.2012. A copy of the order dated 02.04.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, aforesaid letter. co-ordinate Bench of this in the order dated 03.02.2012 reproduced above, the instant revision petition is 02.04.2025 rishu 2011 (O&M) -3- As per office report dated 16.08.2023, the petitioner ha deposited the sum of ₹20,000/- in compliance of the order dated 03.02.2012, till date. Further, Mr. Vivek Goyal petitioner through his letter dated 31.07.2024 had also informed during the pendency of instant revision petition, the petition filed by the respondent-wife under Section 24 of HMA was withdrawn by her on 02.04.2012. A copy of the order dated 02.04.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, aforesaid letter. In view of the above and the observations made by a ordinate Bench of this in the order dated 03.02.2012 reproduced above, the instant revision petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. 02.04.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable As per office report dated 16.08.2023, the petitioner has not in compliance of the order dated Further, Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner through his letter dated 31.07.2024 had also informed that during the pendency of instant revision petition, the petition filed by the wife under Section 24 of HMA was withdrawn by her on 02.04.2012. A copy of the order dated 02.04.2012 passed by the learned was also appended with the In view of the above and the observations made by a ordinate Bench of this in the order dated 03.02.2012 reproduced dismissed. ny, shall stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No In view of the above and the observations made by a RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.03 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.