IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 110 Rishi Kumar Sharma Smt. Lata @ Hem Lata 110-2 Hem Lata Sharma Rishi Kumar Sharma and others 110-3 Hem Lata Sharma Rishi Kumar Sharma and others CORAM: Present:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rishi Kumar Sharma Versus Smt. Lata @ Hem Lata Hem Lata Sharma Versus Rishi Kumar Sharma and others Hem Lata Sharma Versus Rishi Kumar Sharma and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Hem Lata Sharma as appellant (in FAO-1446-2023 and in TA and as respondent (in FAO-3251 Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for the appellant (in FAO-3251 Dr. Rau P.S.Girwar, Advocate and Ms. Archana Arora Rau, Advocate, Ms. K.T.Rau, Advocate and Mr. Ashish Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1 (in FAO ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-3251-2021 Reserved on: 24.04.2025 Pronounced on: 16.05.2025 ...Appellant Versus ...Respondent FAO-1446-2023 ...Appellant Versus ...Respondents TA-184-2023 ...Applicant Versus ...Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI as appellant/applicant in person in TA-184-2023) 3251-2021). Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate 3251-2021). Dr. Rau P.S.Girwar, Advocate and Ms. Archana Arora Rau, Advocate, Advocate or respondent No.1 (in FAO-1446-2023). ...Appellant ...Respondent ...Appellant ...Respondents Applicant ...Respondents SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 VIKAS SURI 1. FAO-3251 Lata”; FAO Sharma and others Rishi Kumar Sharma and others matrimonial disc with the consent of the parties are bein common judgment. 2. all the three cases but FAO-3251 3. Courts Act, 1984 (for short, the ‘Act of 1984’) the order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the Court, Sirsa permission to withdr Adalat on 10.04.2021, has been dismissed. 4. appellant and respondent was solemnized on 08.12.2010 and no child has been born from the said wedlock under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce, on 23.12.2011. In the said petition, an parte decree of divorce was passed by the learned Additional District -2- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 VIKAS SURI, J. Through this common judgment, we propose to dispose of 3251-2021 titled as “Rishi Kumar Sharma vs. FAO-1446-2023 titled as “Hem Lata Sharma vs. Sharma and others”; and TA-184-2023 Rishi Kumar Sharma and others”. All the three cases are arising from matrimonial discord between the appellant with the consent of the parties are being heard together and decided by a common judgment. The facts in brief, for convenience, all the three cases but each case is being discussed 3251-2021 This appeal has been preferred under Section 19 of Courts Act, 1984 (for short, the ‘Act of 1984’) order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the Court, Sirsa whereby an application filed by the permission to withdraw his statement suffered before the National Lok Adalat on 10.04.2021, has been dismissed. Briefly stated, sans unnecessary details, marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 08.12.2010 and no child has been born from the said wedlock. The appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce, on 23.12.2011. In the said petition, an decree of divorce was passed by the learned Additional District Through this common judgment, we propose to dispose of Rishi Kumar Sharma vs. Smt. Lata @ Hem “Hem Lata Sharma vs. Rishi Kumar 2023 titled as “Hem Lata Sharma vs. . All the three cases are arising from the appellant-husband and respondent-wife and g heard together and decided by a for convenience, have been marshalled from being discussed individually. This appeal has been preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, the ‘Act of 1984’) by the husband, aggrieved by order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family whereby an application filed by the appellant-husband seeking aw his statement suffered before the National Lok Adalat on 10.04.2021, has been dismissed. Briefly stated, sans unnecessary details, marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 08.12.2010 and no child has . The appellant-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce, on 23.12.2011. In the said petition, an decree of divorce was passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Through this common judgment, we propose to dispose of Smt. Lata @ Hem Kumar Hem Lata Sharma vs. . All the three cases are arising from wife and g heard together and decided by a lled from the Family , aggrieved by ipal Judge, Family husband seeking aw his statement suffered before the National Lok Briefly stated, sans unnecessary details, marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 08.12.2010 and no child has husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce, on 23.12.2011. In the said petition, an ex- Judge, SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 Sirsa, vide judgment and decree dated 08.01.2013 (Annexure P respondent setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 08 4.1 was effected record as Ex.C application seeking to withdraw her proceedings/judgment and decree. A copy of the has not been placed on record before this Court by either of the parties. In view of the statement suffered by the applicant Ex.C-1 arrived at between the parties, the former application dated 08.10.2013 was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn 10.04.2018 (Annexure P 4.2 Section 12 of t (for short, the ‘Act of 2005’) on 19.09.2013, along with an application under Section 23 relief was allowed vide order dated 04.10.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bathinda, and the husband (appellant herein) was directed to pay Rs.20,000/ from the date of the application. It was further ordered that the entire arrears of maintenance be paid by 15.11.2017, i.e., the then next date of hearing in the aforesaid case. -3- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 Sirsa, vide judgment and decree dated 08.01.2013 (Annexure P respondent-wife moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte proceeding order dated 12.11.2012 and the final judgment and decree dated 08.01.2013. During the pendency of the said proceedings, a compromise effected between the appellant and the respondent, which was taken on record as Ex.C-1. Owing to the compromise, the respondent moved another application seeking to withdraw her application for setting aside the proceedings/judgment and decree. A copy of the has not been placed on record before this Court by either of the parties. In view of the statement suffered by the applicant 1 arrived at between the parties, the former application dated 08.10.2013 was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn 10.04.2018 (Annexure P-4). Earlier thereto, the respondent Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the ‘Act of 2005’) on 19.09.2013, along with an application under Section 23 of the ibid Act, for interim relief. The said application for interim relief was allowed vide order dated 04.10.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bathinda, and the husband (appellant herein) was directed to pay Rs.20,000/- per month to the wife fo from the date of the application. It was further ordered that the entire arrears of maintenance be paid by 15.11.2017, i.e., the then next date of hearing in the aforesaid case. Sirsa, vide judgment and decree dated 08.01.2013 (Annexure P-1). The wife moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for proceeding order dated 12.11.2012 and the final .01.2013. During the pendency of the said proceedings, a compromise between the appellant and the respondent, which was taken on 1. Owing to the compromise, the respondent moved another application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings/judgment and decree. A copy of the supra compromise Ex.C has not been placed on record before this Court by either of the parties. In view of the statement suffered by the applicant-wife and the compromise 1 arrived at between the parties, the former application dated 08.10.2013 was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated Earlier thereto, the respondent-wife had filed a complaint under he Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the ‘Act of 2005’) on 19.09.2013, along with an application under for interim relief. The said application for interim relief was allowed vide order dated 04.10.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bathinda, and the husband (appellant herein) per month to the wife for her maintenance from the date of the application. It was further ordered that the entire arrears of maintenance be paid by 15.11.2017, i.e., the then next date of hearing in 1). The wife moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for proceeding order dated 12.11.2012 and the final During the pendency of the said proceedings, a compromise between the appellant and the respondent, which was taken on 1. Owing to the compromise, the respondent moved another parte compromise Ex.C-1 has not been placed on record before this Court by either of the parties. In romise 1 arrived at between the parties, the former application dated vide order dated wife had filed a complaint under he Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the ‘Act of 2005’) on 19.09.2013, along with an application under for interim relief. The said application for interim relief was allowed vide order dated 04.10.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bathinda, and the husband (appellant herein) r her maintenance from the date of the application. It was further ordered that the entire arrears of maintenance be paid by 15.11.2017, i.e., the then next date of hearing in SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 4.3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, 09.09.2016, month from the date of fili order, the appellant of Session, assigned wife, the supra criminal revision passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda. 4.4 application for restoration of the earlier application referre Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the order dated 12.11.2012, whereby she was proceeded against dated 08.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa. It is averred in the the order dated 10.04.2018, has refused to keep and maintain the respondent wife and has proclaimed of having played fraud upon her for reconciliation, to get her vide order dated 03.06.2019 (Annexure P Judge, Family Court, Sirsa, and the matter was kept for arguments lunch break Court, by the appellant Kumar Sharma vs. Hemlata Sharma” -4- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 The respondent-wife had filed an application under Sec of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, 09.09.2016, awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/ month from the date of filing of the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-husband preferred a criminal revision of Session, bearing No.28 of 24.05.2017, which assigned CRN No. CRR-138/2017. After the supra criminal revision was dismissed vide order dated 24.05.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda. Thereafter, on 17.04.2018, the respondent application for restoration of the earlier application referre Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the order dated 12.11.2012, whereby she was proceeded against ex-parte and the dated 08.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa. It is averred in the said application that the appellant the order dated 10.04.2018, has refused to keep and maintain the respondent wife and has proclaimed of having played fraud upon her for reconciliation, to get her main application withdrawn. Th vide order dated 03.06.2019 (Annexure P Judge, Family Court, Sirsa, and the matter was kept for arguments lunch break, on the same day. The said order was challenged before this by the appellant-husband, by way of CR Kumar Sharma vs. Hemlata Sharma”, and vide order dated 16.08.2019 wife had filed an application under Section 125 , 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C) on 04.01.2016 wherein the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, vide order dated awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- ng of the said application. Aggrieved by the said husband preferred a criminal revision before the Court bearing No.28 of 24.05.2017, which on being registered was After due contest by the respondent was dismissed vide order dated 24.05.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda. Thereafter, on 17.04.2018, the respondent-wife moved an application for restoration of the earlier application referred to above under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the order dated 12.11.2012, whereby and the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 08.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa. It is said application that the appellant-husband, after passing of the order dated 10.04.2018, has refused to keep and maintain the respondent wife and has proclaimed of having played fraud upon her for reconciliation, application withdrawn. The latter application was allowed vide order dated 03.06.2019 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sirsa, and the matter was kept for arguments, post on the same day. The said order was challenged before this by way of CR-4695-2019 titled as “Rishi , and vide order dated 16.08.2019 tion 125 on 04.01.2016, vide order dated per ng of the said application. Aggrieved by the said before the Court on being registered was spondent- was dismissed vide order dated 24.05.2017 wife moved an d to above under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the order dated 12.11.2012, whereby judgment and decree dated 08.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa. It is husband, after passing of the order dated 10.04.2018, has refused to keep and maintain the respondent- wife and has proclaimed of having played fraud upon her for reconciliation, application was allowed 5) passed by the learned Principal post on the same day. The said order was challenged before this “Rishi , and vide order dated 16.08.2019 SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 (Annexure P to adjourn the case beyond the date fixed in the said supra petition, at the asking of the appellant was permitted CR-4695- 4.5 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing as well as the Magistrate First Class, Bathinda, whereby the appellant was directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/ Section 23 of 40708-2018. 4.6 withdrawn the instance of the respondent a sum of Rs.20,000/ amount that was awarded as interim maintenance Court. The parties have not pleaded or placed any material on record to show that the final was modified 4.7 Cr.P.C. and under Section 2 to the respondent -5- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 (Annexure P-6), notice of motion was issued while directing the trial Court to adjourn the case beyond the date fixed in the said supra petition, at the asking of the appellant was permitted be to withdrawn and vide order dated 23.02.2023, -2019 was dismissed as withdrawn. The appellant-husband had also filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 as well as the order dated 04.10.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bathinda, and subsequent proceedings thereto, whereby the appellant was directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the respondent Section 23 of the Act of 2005, which came to be registered as CRM 2018. On 23.02.2023, the said petition was also dismissed as withdrawn. The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance the instance of the respondent-wife, culminated into the a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month vide order dated amount that was awarded as interim maintenance Court. The parties have not pleaded or placed any material on record to show that the final order dated 07.09.2018, was modified or interfered with, by any superior Court. On account of the maintenance granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and under Section 23 of the Act of 2005, the respondent-wife, the appellant-husband is in arrears of maintenance. 6), notice of motion was issued while directing the trial Court to adjourn the case beyond the date fixed in the said revision petition. The supra petition, at the asking of the appellant-husband (petitioner therein) and vide order dated 23.02.2023, 19 was dismissed as withdrawn. husband had also filed a petition under Section the complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 7 passed by the learned Judicial and subsequent proceedings thereto, whereby the appellant was directed to pay interim maintenance of per month to the respondent-wife under the provisions of ct of 2005, which came to be registered as CRM- he said petition was also dismissed as . The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance culminated into the wife being awarded per month vide order dated 07.09.2018, i.e., the same amount that was awarded as interim maintenance and was upheld by this Court. The parties have not pleaded or placed any material on record to order dated 07.09.2018, passed on the supra applicati by any superior Court. On account of the maintenance granted under Section 125 of the Act of 2005, not having been paid in full husband is in arrears of maintenance. 6), notice of motion was issued while directing the trial Court The husband (petitioner therein), and vide order dated 23.02.2023, husband had also filed a petition under Section the complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 7 passed by the learned Judicial and subsequent proceedings thereto, whereby the appellant was directed to pay interim maintenance of wife under the provisions of -M- he said petition was also dismissed as . The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, at wife being awarded i.e., the same upheld by this Court. The parties have not pleaded or placed any material on record to passed on the supra application, On account of the maintenance granted under Section 125 not having been paid in full husband is in arrears of maintenance. SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 The respondent the learned Family Court outstanding towards maintenance allowance account of arrears of rent. 4.8 dated 08.10.2013 seeking setting aside the more than 80 hearings had taken place till 10.04.2021. pleaded that she expenditure application for compensation to that effect. In order to look into the said aspect, the matter statement of the appellant withdraw his main petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 4.9 his statement suffered before the National Lok Adalat on 10.04.2021 emphatically contested by the respondent submissions made by the parties application was dismissed Principal Judge, Family Court, Sirsa of as settled in the National Lok Adalat on 10.04.2021 and the main petition stood dismissed as withdrawn as per the statement 5. appellant- 6. -6- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 The respondent-wife through her affidavit the learned Family Court has averred that a sum of Rs. outstanding towards maintenance allowance account of arrears of rent. It is noteworthy that since 08.10.2013 seeking setting aside the more than 80 hearings had taken place till 10.04.2021. pleaded that she had a legitimate expectation of reimbursement of huge expenditure incurred by her for the numerous visits and, thus, made an application for compensation to that effect. In order to look into the said aspect, the matter was deferred but after statement of the appellant-husband, on oath, withdraw his main petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The application filed by the appellant his statement suffered before the National Lok Adalat on 10.04.2021 emphatically contested by the respondent submissions made by the parties and perusing the record application was dismissed vide order dated Principal Judge, Family Court, Sirsa. Accordingly, the matter was disposed as settled in the National Lok Adalat on 10.04.2021 and the main petition stood dismissed as withdrawn as per the statement Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated -husband has assailed the same through Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as the award through her affidavit submitted on 10.04.2021 before has averred that a sum of Rs.10,49,642/- outstanding towards maintenance allowance, besides Rs.8,23,000/- that since the institution of the application 08.10.2013 seeking setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree, more than 80 hearings had taken place till 10.04.2021. The respondent-wife legitimate expectation of reimbursement of huge numerous visits and, thus, made an application for compensation to that effect. In order to look into the said after recording the voluntary univocal , on oath, thereby recording his prayer withdraw his main petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The application filed by the appellant-husband for withdrawing his statement suffered before the National Lok Adalat on 10.04.2021, was emphatically contested by the respondent-wife. After considering the and perusing the record, the supra order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the learned Accordingly, the matter was disposed as settled in the National Lok Adalat on 10.04.2021 and the main petition stood dismissed as withdrawn as per the statement of the appellant-husband. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 17.09.2021, the the same through the instant appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as the award before - is on of the application judgment and decree, wife legitimate expectation of reimbursement of huge numerous visits and, thus, made an application for compensation to that effect. In order to look into the said the voluntary univocal recording his prayer to for withdrawing was considering the , the supra passed by the learned Accordingly, the matter was disposed as settled in the National Lok Adalat on 10.04.2021 and the main petition husband. 17.09.2021, the Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as the award SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 by the National Lok Adalat was not passed o husband ought to have been permitted to withdraw the statement suffered by him. Result of not passing the award on the day of recording the statement would be that the matter was no longer before the National Lok Adalat. It is further argued that the appellant had suffered the aforesaid statement, regarding withdrawal of the main divorce petition, in haste and without fully understanding the consequences arising therefrom. It is further submitted that the appellant many years and is on medication for the said disease and remains disturbed owing to numerous litigations between the parties in various courts. 7. defended the impugned order and submits that the appellant be permitted in law to resile from the statement made on oath, of his own volition, before the National Lok Adalat. The grounds urged in her reply dated 09.07.2021 to the applicatio suffered before the National Lok Adalat, have been reiterated. 8. the respondent 9. 08.12.2010 have been in litigation since marriage. A perusal of the record would show that some compromise ca to be effected between the parties in the proceedings pertaining to the application filed by the respondent -7- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 by the National Lok Adalat was not passed o husband ought to have been permitted to withdraw the statement suffered by him. Result of not passing the award on the day of recording the statement would be that the matter was no longer before the National Lok Adalat. It is further argued that the appellant had suffered the aforesaid statement, regarding withdrawal of the main divorce petition, in haste and without fully understanding the consequences arising therefrom. It is further submitted that the appellant-husband is a chronic patient of hypertension for the last many years and is on medication for the said disease and remains disturbed owing to numerous litigations between the parties in various courts. The respondent-wife has emphatically opposed the appeal and defended the impugned order and submits that the appellant be permitted in law to resile from the statement made on oath, of his own volition, before the National Lok Adalat. The grounds urged in her reply dated 09.07.2021 to the application seeking withdrawal of the statement suffered before the National Lok Adalat, have been reiterated. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well a the respondent-wife in person and perused the record. It is not disputed that marriage of the parties was solemnized on 08.12.2010 and no child has been born from the said wedlock. The parties have been in litigation since December, 2011 . A perusal of the record would show that some compromise ca to be effected between the parties in the proceedings pertaining to the application filed by the respondent-wife under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for by the National Lok Adalat was not passed on 10.04.2021, the appellant husband ought to have been permitted to withdraw the statement suffered by him. Result of not passing the award on the day of recording the statement would be that the matter was no longer before the National Lok Adalat. It is further argued that the appellant had suffered the aforesaid statement, regarding withdrawal of the main divorce petition, in haste and without fully understanding the consequences arising therefrom. It is further submitted chronic patient of hypertension for the last many years and is on medication for the said disease and remains disturbed owing to numerous litigations between the parties in various courts. wife has emphatically opposed the appeal and defended the impugned order and submits that the appellant-husband cannot be permitted in law to resile from the statement made on oath, of his own volition, before the National Lok Adalat. The grounds urged in her reply n seeking withdrawal of the statement suffered before the National Lok Adalat, have been reiterated. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well a wife in person and perused the record. ge of the parties was solemnized on and no child has been born from the said wedlock. The parties 2011, that is, just one year after the . A perusal of the record would show that some compromise ca to be effected between the parties in the proceedings pertaining to the wife under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for n 10.04.2021, the appellant- husband ought to have been permitted to withdraw the statement suffered by him. Result of not passing the award on the day of recording the statement would be that the matter was no longer before the National Lok Adalat. It is further argued that the appellant had suffered the aforesaid statement, regarding withdrawal of the main divorce petition, in haste and without fully understanding the consequences arising therefrom. It is further submitted chronic patient of hypertension for the last many years and is on medication for the said disease and remains disturbed wife has emphatically opposed the appeal and husband cannot be permitted in law to resile from the statement made on oath, of his own volition, before the National Lok Adalat. The grounds urged in her reply n seeking withdrawal of the statement We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as ge of the parties was solemnized on and no child has been born from the said wedlock. The parties after the . A perusal of the record would show that some compromise came to be effected between the parties in the proceedings pertaining to the wife under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 setting aside the evident that the parties had been conte However, as alleged by the respondent from his commitment earlier application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Till said five years had then multiple litigation stages, between the parties. A perusal of the record would show that the appellant- by the Translation Branch of this Court from Hindi to English) National Lok Adalat, Family Court, Sir further reveals that the said statement was after having read the same, accepted it to be correct, which was in the presence of his counsel, who identified -8- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated evident that the parties had been contemplating , as alleged by the respondent-wife, the appellant his commitment and hence, she filed an application for restoring her earlier application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Till said years had elapsed since the ex parte multiple litigations were pending before between the parties. A perusal of the record would show that the -husband suffered the hereinafter extracted statement by the Translation Branch of this Court from Hindi to English) National Lok Adalat, being presided over Family Court, Sirsa, which came to be recorded reveals that the said statement was after having read the same, accepted it to be correct, which was in the presence of his counsel, who identified the appellant “Statement of Rishi Kumar s/o late Piare Lal, aged 57 years, r/o #624, Gali No.10, Aggarsain Clony, Sirsa. It is stated that I have made decision through the National Lok Adalat that I withdraw my main petition HMA. After withdrawal, it may be filed. RO&AC Sd/- Rishi Kumar (In English) Identified by Sd/- (in English) 10/4/21” judgment and decree dated 08.01.2013. It is mplating of amicably settling the wife, the appellant-husband resiled and hence, she filed an application for restoring her earlier application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Till said point in time, nearly ex parte divorce had been granted and were pending before different Forums, at different between the parties. A perusal of the record would show that the uffered the hereinafter extracted statement (as translated by the Translation Branch of this Court from Hindi to English) before the being presided over by the learned Principal Judge, which came to be recorded on 10.04.2021. The record reveals that the said statement was made on oath and the appellant after having read the same, accepted it to be correct, which was in the the appellant-husband. “Statement of Rishi Kumar s/o late Piare Lal, aged 57 years, r/o #624, Gali No.10, Aggarsain Clony, Sirsa. On S.A. It is stated that I have made decision through the National Lok Adalat that I withdraw my main petition under Section 13 of the ithdrawal, it may be filed. Sd/- (Jasbir Singh Kundu) Principal Judge, Family Court Sirsa 08.01.2013. It is of amicably settling the lis. resiled and hence, she filed an application for restoring her , nearly and by , at different between the parties. A perusal of the record would show that the (as translated before the by the learned Principal Judge, . The record made on oath and the appellant after having read the same, accepted it to be correct, which was in the “Statement of Rishi Kumar s/o late Piare Lal, aged 57 years, r/o It is stated that I have made decision through the National Lok under Section 13 of the SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 10. to sue the appellant 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for recovery of maintenance allowance/permanent alimony period of ten sum of Rs.36,00,000/ Rs.8,69,512/ Excise and Taxation Officer, promoted as Commissioner and due to retire from serv months. The relief of permanent injunction was also sought restraining the official respondents husband, before payment of the aforesaid claimed amount and arrears of maintenance, which were claimed to be in the sum of Rs. husband was represented in the supra suit throug 11. a statement before the National Lok Adalat on application seeking to withdraw from the said statement was instituted on 07.06.2021. It is notable that 23.04.2021 also instituted a adoption deed an ex parte granted vide order dated Family Court, Bathinda. -9- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 That on 18.09.2020, the respondent to sue the appellant-husband, as forma pa 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for recovery of maintenance allowance/permanent alimony at the rate of Rs.30,000/ period of ten years and for creating the charge of the aforesaid amount in the sum of Rs.36,00,000/- along with the amount of arrears of maintenance of Rs.8,69,512/- on the service benefits of Excise and Taxation Officer, Rampura Phul, promoted as Commissioner and due to retire from serv The relief of permanent injunction was also sought restraining the official respondents, i.e., the employer and department of the respondent from releasing the service benefits/retiral benefits before payment of the aforesaid claimed amount and arrears of maintenance, which were claimed to be in the sum of Rs. husband was represented in the supra suit throug It is evident from the record that the appellant a statement before the National Lok Adalat on application seeking to withdraw from the said statement was instituted on 07.06.2021. It is notable that in the meanwhile 23.04.2021 also instituted a suit for declaration adoption deed. In the earlier suit for maintenance, instituted on 18.09.2020, parte ad-interim injunction from releasing the service benefits was vide order dated 05.05.2021 passed Family Court, Bathinda. Thus, it is apparent that the pleas set up by the That on 18.09.2020, the respondent-wife moved the civil Court auperis, for her claim under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for recovery of maintenance at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month for a creating the charge of the aforesaid amount in the along with the amount of arrears of maintenance of on the service benefits of the appellant-husband working as Rampura Phul, District Bathinda, since promoted as Commissioner and due to retire from service within a few The relief of permanent injunction was also sought restraining the the employer and department of the respondent releasing the service benefits/retiral benefits of the husband before payment of the aforesaid claimed amount and arrears of maintenance, which were claimed to be in the sum of Rs.44,69,512/-. The appellant husband was represented in the supra suit through counsel. It is evident from the record that the appellant-husband suffered a statement before the National Lok Adalat on 10.04.2021, whereas the application seeking to withdraw from the said statement was instituted on meanwhile, the respondent-wife had on suit for declaration inter alia challenging the . In the earlier suit for maintenance, instituted on 18.09.2020, interim injunction from releasing the service benefits was passed by the learned Principal Judge, Thus, it is apparent that the pleas set up by the moved the civil Court under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for recovery of maintenance per month for a creating the charge of the aforesaid amount in the along with the amount of arrears of maintenance of husband working as , since ice within a few The relief of permanent injunction was also sought restraining the the employer and department of the respondent- of the husband before payment of the aforesaid claimed amount and arrears of maintenance, The appellant- suffered , whereas the application seeking to withdraw from the said statement was instituted on wife had on challenging the . In the earlier suit for maintenance, instituted on 18.09.2020, interim injunction from releasing the service benefits was by the learned Principal Judge, Thus, it is apparent that the pleas set up by the SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 appellant- volition before the National Lok Adalat, on 10.04.2021, is an afterthought. The appellant this Court dated 29.0 amount of Rs.8,00,000/ said sum in her bank account. to the respondent withdrawn by the appellant 12. the present appeal is whether an award not having been passed by the National Lok Adalat on the date of reco jurisdiction of the said Lok Adalat to subsequently record an and the parties could be permitted to unilaterally withdraw their statement before passing of such order/ 13. mind the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case delve into the core issue for discussion, it would be apposite to refer to the statutory scheme of Lok Adalats, provided under Chapter VI of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter for ready reference. -10- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 -husband seeking to withdraw his statem volition before the National Lok Adalat, on 10.04.2021, is an afterthought. appellant-husband challenged the said order dated this Court by way of CR-1433-2021 and in the said proceedings, vide order 29.07.2022, the official respondents were directed to release amount of Rs.8,00,000/- in favour of respondent sum in her bank account. Upon the said amount to the respondent-wife, the supra revision withdrawn by the appellant-husband on 09.09.2022. The question that arises for consideration before this Court in the present appeal is whether an award not having been passed by the National Lok Adalat on the date of reco jurisdiction of the said Lok Adalat to subsequently record an and the parties could be permitted to unilaterally withdraw their statement passing of such order/award. We have profoundly considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case delve into the core issue for discussion, it would be apposite to refer to the statutory scheme of Lok Adalats, provided under Chapter VI of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, the “Act of 1987”), provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter for ready reference. CHAPTER VI LOK ADALATS 19. Organisation of Lok Adalats. Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal husband seeking to withdraw his statement suffered of his own volition before the National Lok Adalat, on 10.04.2021, is an afterthought. said order dated 05.05.2021 before 021 and in the said proceedings, vide order 7.2022, the official respondents were directed to release in favour of respondent-wife by transferring the the said amount having been transferred the supra revision petition (CR-1433-2021) was 09.09.2022. The question that arises for consideration before this Court in the present appeal is whether an award not having been passed by the National Lok Adalat on the date of recording statements would oust the jurisdiction of the said Lok Adalat to subsequently record an order/award and the parties could be permitted to unilaterally withdraw their statement profoundly considered the aforesaid issue, keeping the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. Before we delve into the core issue for discussion, it would be apposite to refer to the statutory scheme of Lok Adalats, provided under Chapter VI of the Legal (for short, the “Act of 1987”), the relevant provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter for ready reference. CHAPTER VI LOK ADALATS 19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.—(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal ent suffered of his own volition before the National Lok Adalat, on 10.04.2021, is an afterthought. before 021 and in the said proceedings, vide order 7.2022, the official respondents were directed to release an by transferring the having been transferred 2021) was The question that arises for consideration before this Court in the present appeal is whether an award not having been passed by the ding statements would oust the award and the parties could be permitted to unilaterally withdraw their statement(s) keeping in Before we delve into the core issue for discussion, it would be apposite to refer to the statutory scheme of Lok Adalats, provided under Chapter VI of the Legal relevant SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 -11- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Committee may organize Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit. (2) Every Lok Adalat organised for an area shall consist of such number of— (a) serving or retired judicial officers; and (b) other persons, of the area as may be specified by the State Authority or the District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or the High Court Legal Services Committee, or as the case may be, the Taluk Legal Services Committee, organising such Lok Adalat. (3) The experience and qualifications of other persons referred to in clause (b) of sub organised by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. (4) The experience and qualifications of other persons referred to in clause (b) of sub other than referred to in sub-section (3) shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government in consul Chief Justice of the High Court. (5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of— (i) any case pending before; or (ii) any matter which is f jurisdiction of, and is not brought before, any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised: Provided that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law. 20. Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats. 20. Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats. Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluk Legal Services Committee may organize Lok Adalats at such intervals and exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as (2) Every Lok Adalat organised for an area shall consist (a) serving or retired judicial officers; and of the area as may be specified by the State Authority or the District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or the High Court Legal Services Committee, or as the case may be, the Taluk Legal Services Committee, (3) The experience and qualifications of other persons referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) for Lok Adalats organised by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government the Chief Justice of India. (4) The experience and qualifications of other persons referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) for Lok Adalats section (3) shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. (5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties (i) any case pending before; or (ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, and is not brought before, any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised: Provided that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not 20. Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats.—(1) Where SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 -12- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 in any case referred to in clause (i) of sub 19,— (i) (a) the parties thereof agree; or (b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court, for referring the Adalat for settlement and if such court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat: Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any e law for the time being in force, the Authority or Committee organising the Lok Adalat under sub may, on receipt of an application from any one of the parties to any matter referred to in clause (ii) 19 that such matter needs to be determined by a Lok Adalat, refer such matter to the Lok Adalat, for determination: Provided that no matter shall be referred to the Lok Adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of b heard to the other party. (3) Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) or where a reference has been made to it under sub-section (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or between the parties. (4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference before it under this Act, act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by the principles of justice, in any case referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section (a) the parties thereof agree; or (b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court, for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the refer the case to the Lok Adalat: Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to nything contained in any either law for the time being in force, the Authority or Committee organising the Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) of section19 may, on receipt of an application from any one of the parties to any matter referred to in clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of section 19 that such matter needs to be determined by a Lok Adalat, refer such matter to the Lok Adalat, for determination: Provided that no matter shall be referred to the Lok Adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being (3) Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under section (1) or where a reference has been made to it under section (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement (4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference before it under this Act, act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 14. and cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats, is governed by the provisions enshrined provisions it stays with the said Lok Adalat until the same is returned to the Court, from which the reference has been received under sub accordance with law. In the case cognizance of the case on 10.04.2021 husband had been recorded assessment regarding the wife, the matter was deferred to 30.10.2021. The presiding officer on home quarantine, having tested Corona positive, the matter was posted for 07.06.2021. -13- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 other legal principles. (5) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the record of the case shall be returned by it to the court, from which the reference has been received under sub-section (1) for disposal in accordance with law. (6) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, in a matter referred to in sub that Lok Adalat shall advice the parties t court. (7) Where the record of the case if returned under sub section (5) to the court, such court shall proceed to deal with such case from the stage which was reached before such reference under sub-section (1). The organisation of Lok Adalats is provided under Section 19 and cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats, is governed by the provisions enshrined under Section 20 of the Act ( provisions would reveal that once the Lok Adalat tak it stays with the said Lok Adalat until the same is returned to the Court, from which the reference has been received under sub accordance with law. In the case at hand, the National Lok Adalat had tak cognizance of the case on 10.04.2021, when the statement of the appellant husband had been recorded but for minutely examin assessment regarding the claim for compensation the matter was deferred to 30.10.2021. The presiding officer on home quarantine, having tested Corona positive, the matter was posted 07.06.2021. There is no material on record to suggest that the matter had Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the record of the case shall be returned by it to the court, from which the reference has been received or disposal in accordance with law. Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, in a matter referred to in sub-section (2), that Lok Adalat shall advice the parties to seek remedy in a (7) Where the record of the case if returned under sub- section (5) to the court, such court shall proceed to deal with such case from the stage which was reached before such section (1).” The organisation of Lok Adalats is provided under Section 19 and cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats, is governed by the provisions Section 20 of the Act (ibid). A perusal of the aforesaid that once the Lok Adalat takes cognizance of a case, it stays with the said Lok Adalat until the same is returned to the Court, from which the reference has been received under sub-section (1), for disposal in , the National Lok Adalat had tak , when the statement of the appellant minutely examining the record for for compensation raised by the respondent the matter was deferred to 30.10.2021. The presiding officer then being on home quarantine, having tested Corona positive, the matter was posted There is no material on record to suggest that the matter had The organisation of Lok Adalats is provided under Section 19 and cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats, is governed by the provisions . A perusal of the aforesaid es cognizance of a case, it stays with the said Lok Adalat until the same is returned to the Court, from section (1), for disposal in , the National Lok Adalat had taken , when the statement of the appellant- the record for the respondent- being on home quarantine, having tested Corona positive, the matter was posted There is no material on record to suggest that the matter had SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 been returned to the referral Cou and the procedural hearings National Lok Adalat, which ultimately passed the impugned order dated 17.09.2021. case and not having returned it to the Court that had referred the same, t matter remained with the Lok Adalat and it had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. 15. circumstances aris defer the proceedings to examine the record. It is not disputed that the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce had been filed by the appellant and it was his prerogative to withdraw his petition the statement suffered on 10.04.2021, before the National Lok Adalat. Having voluntarily accepting it and passing the impugned order commence the laudable objective of the Act of 1987. have legitimately likely to be caused to her divorce would not passed in her favour 2005, respectively Court and not just b -14- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 been returned to the referral Court, as unsettled. procedural hearings noticed above, the matter remained with the National Lok Adalat, which ultimately passed the impugned order dated 17.09.2021. Thus, the National Lok Adalat having taken cognizance of case and not having returned it to the Court that had referred the same, t remained with the Lok Adalat and it had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order would further show that in the circumstances arising in the instant case, there was no legal necessity to defer the proceedings to examine the record. It is not disputed that the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce had been filed by the appellant-husband. As such and it was his prerogative to withdraw his petition the statement suffered on 10.04.2021, before the National Lok Adalat. voluntarily made the statement (supra), ng it and passing the impugned order commenced on 23.12.2011 was being given a quietus the laudable objective of the Act of 1987. legitimately objected to the simplic likely to be caused to her. Moreover, withdrawal of the main petition for divorce would not also have any adverse effect upon the maintenance orders passed in her favour under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 23 of the Ac 2005, respectively. In fact, such a prayer can also be granted by the Family Court and not just by the Lok Adalat. Thus, in the considered view of this rt, as unsettled. In the absence of the same above, the matter remained with the National Lok Adalat, which ultimately passed the impugned order dated Thus, the National Lok Adalat having taken cognizance of case and not having returned it to the Court that had referred the same, t remained with the Lok Adalat and it had jurisdiction to pass the A perusal of the impugned order would further show that in the ing in the instant case, there was no legal necessity to defer the proceedings to examine the record. It is not disputed that the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce husband. As such, he was the dominus litis and it was his prerogative to withdraw his petition unilaterally, in terms of the statement suffered on 10.04.2021, before the National Lok Adalat. statement (supra), there was no illegality in ng it and passing the impugned order. Rather the litigation that had was being given a quietus and the same is within the laudable objective of the Act of 1987. The respondent-wife could not objected to the simpliciter withdrawal, as no prejudice is . Moreover, withdrawal of the main petition for have any adverse effect upon the maintenance orders under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 23 of the Act of In fact, such a prayer can also be granted by the Family Thus, in the considered view of this In the absence of the same above, the matter remained with the National Lok Adalat, which ultimately passed the impugned order dated the case and not having returned it to the Court that had referred the same, the remained with the Lok Adalat and it had jurisdiction to pass the A perusal of the impugned order would further show that in the ing in the instant case, there was no legal necessity to defer the proceedings to examine the record. It is not disputed that the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce dominus litis , in terms of the statement suffered on 10.04.2021, before the National Lok Adalat. illegality in had and the same is within wife could not e is . Moreover, withdrawal of the main petition for have any adverse effect upon the maintenance orders t of In fact, such a prayer can also be granted by the Family Thus, in the considered view of this SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 Court, the National Lok Adalat should have passed the award on 10.04.2021 itself, after the appellant statement to withdraw his main petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 16. proposition that a statement made before the Lok Adalat cannot be unilaterally recalled. necessary rule would be other interpretation would be prejudicial to presented by the appell Lok Adalat would face the peril of uncertainty and the legislative intent would fail to be achieved. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellant- his own volition suffered the statement before the National Lok Adalat 10.04.2021 that the appellant statement recorded, whi rule. The statement was recorded on 10.04.2021 whereas the application for withdrawing the same was filed on 07.06.2021, i.e., after about two months. The delay caused in moving the application also remains unexplained. 17. -15- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 Court, the National Lok Adalat should have passed the award on 10.04.2021 itself, after the appellant-husband had suffered statement to withdraw his main petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The matter may be viewed from yet another angle. I proposition that a statement made before the Lok Adalat cannot be unilaterally recalled. For doing so, explicit consent of the other party is necessary, which is not forthcoming in the present case ould be qua a statement, which is other interpretation would be in violation of prejudicial to the laudable objective of the Act of 1987. If such a view presented by the appellant, is permitted to Lok Adalat would face the peril of uncertainty and the legislative intent would fail to be achieved. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the -husband was accompanied and assisted by his own volition suffered the statement before the National Lok Adalat 10.04.2021. No cogent material has been that the appellant-husband was under any handicap when he got his statement recorded, which would render it to fall under The statement was recorded on 10.04.2021 whereas the application for withdrawing the same was filed on 07.06.2021, i.e., after about two months. The delay caused in moving the application also remains unexplained. At the cost of repetition, it is writ large that the application for Court, the National Lok Adalat should have passed the award on 10.04.2021 husband had suffered a voluntary univocal statement to withdraw his main petition under Section 13 of the Hindu ed from yet another angle. It is settled proposition that a statement made before the Lok Adalat cannot be , explicit consent of the other party is forthcoming in the present case. Exception to which is the result of deceit or fraud. Any in violation of the statutory provisions and objective of the Act of 1987. If such a view, as is permitted to prevail, all settlements before the Lok Adalat would face the peril of uncertainty and the legislative intent would fail to be achieved. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the husband was accompanied and assisted by his counsel, when he of his own volition suffered the statement before the National Lok Adalat material has been placed on record to demonstrate husband was under any handicap when he got his ch would render it to fall under any exception to the The statement was recorded on 10.04.2021 whereas the application for withdrawing the same was filed on 07.06.2021, i.e., after about two months. The delay caused in moving the application for recalling of the statement At the cost of repetition, it is writ large that the application for Court, the National Lok Adalat should have passed the award on 10.04.2021 voluntary univocal statement to withdraw his main petition under Section 13 of the Hindu is settled proposition that a statement made before the Lok Adalat cannot be , explicit consent of the other party is to the or fraud. Any the statutory provisions and , as , all settlements before the Lok Adalat would face the peril of uncertainty and the legislative intent would fail to be achieved. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the counsel, when he of on placed on record to demonstrate husband was under any handicap when he got his exception to the The statement was recorded on 10.04.2021 whereas the application for withdrawing the same was filed on 07.06.2021, i.e., after about two months. recalling of the statement, At the cost of repetition, it is writ large that the application for SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 withdrawal of the statement suf calculated move. habitual of tracking therefrom. (Annexure P Ex.C-1 with th he failed judicial proceedings in a casual manner, husband. A party having taking a conscious stand bound by his decision and cannot resile therefrom unless specifically permitted by the statutory provisions. 18. dated 17.09.2021 interference in appeal. Resultantly, the instant appeal being bereft of merit, is dismissed. FAO-1446 19. the Act of 1984 learned Principal Judge, Family Court, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 20. and his employ extracted reliefs. -16- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 withdrawal of the statement suffered on 10.04.2021 is an after calculated move. Moreover, the record show habitual of affecting a compromise before therefrom. The same is evident from the order dated 10.04.2018 (Annexure P-4), whereby the appellant-husband had effected a compromise 1 with the respondent-wife but subsequently to honour his commitment. No litigant can be allowed to take judicial proceedings in a casual manner, husband. A party having taking a conscious stand bound by his decision and cannot resile therefrom unless specifically permitted by the statutory provisions. A corollary of the above discussion is that dated 17.09.2021 does not suffer from any interference in appeal. Resultantly, the instant appeal being bereft of merit, is dismissed. 1446-2023 This appeal has been preferred the Act of 1984, aggrieved by the order dated learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhatinda, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, has not been allowed The plaintiff-Hem Lata Sharma filed a suit against her husband and his employer department, on 23.09.2020 extracted reliefs. fered on 10.04.2021 is an afterthought and a Moreover, the record shows that the appellant-husband is affecting a compromise before the Court and thereafter, back evident from the order dated 10.04.2018 husband had effected a compromise subsequently resiled therefrom, thereby No litigant can be allowed to take judicial proceedings in a casual manner, as has been done by the appellant husband. A party having taking a conscious stand before the Court, remains bound by his decision and cannot resile therefrom unless specifically A corollary of the above discussion is that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference in appeal. Resultantly, the instant appeal being bereft of merit, This appeal has been preferred by the wife under Section 19 of aggrieved by the order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the Bhatinda, whereby her application has not been allowed in toto, as prayed. Hem Lata Sharma filed a suit against her husband on 23.09.2020, seeking the hereinafter and a husband is back evident from the order dated 10.04.2018 husband had effected a compromise thereby No litigant can be allowed to take has been done by the appellant- before the Court, remains bound by his decision and cannot resile therefrom unless specifically the impugned order warranting interference in appeal. Resultantly, the instant appeal being bereft of merit, under Section 19 of passed by the application as prayed. Hem Lata Sharma filed a suit against her husband seeking the hereinafter SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 21. rules 1 and 2 CPC relief. -17- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 “Application under Order 33 Rule 1 read with section 151 of CPC in forma pauperis as indigent persons to sue the defendant under section 18 of Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act for recovery of maintenance allowance/permanent alimony @ Rs.30,000/- per month to the plaintiff for the period of ten years which comes out to Rs. 36,00,000/ charge of the said amount alongwith maintenance allowance of Rs. 8,69,512/ benefits of the defendant who is working as Excise & Taxation Officer, Rampura Phul, Distt: Bathinda and has now been promoted as Commissioner and is going to retire from the service within a few months. AND Suit for Permanent Injunction no.2to5 from releasing the service of the defendant before payment of the aforesaid amount of permanent alimony of Rs. 36,00,000/ dues/arrears of maintenance, approx., totalling Rs. 44,69,512/ detrimental to the rights and interest In the supra suit the plaintiff filed an application rules 1 and 2 CPC, on 23.09.2020, seeking the hereinafter extracted interim “Application under order 39 rules 1 & 2 read with section 151 of CPC for grant of ad-interim injunction for restraining the respondents No.2 to 5 from releasing the service benefits/ retirement benefits of the respondent before payment of the aforesaid amount of permanent alimony of Rs.36 Lac and the outstanding dues/ arrears of maintenance allowance of Rs.8,69,512/- approximately, totaling Rs.44,69,512/ arbitrarily and detrimental to the rights nder Order 33 Rule 1 read with section 151 of CPC in forma pauperis as indigent persons to sue the defendant nder section 18 of Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act for recovery of maintenance allowance/permanent alimony @ per month to the plaintiff for the period of ten years which comes out to Rs. 36,00,000/- and for creating the charge of the said amount alongwith amount of arrears of of Rs. 8,69,512/- on the service benefits of the defendant who is working as Excise & Taxation Phul, Distt: Bathinda and has now been promoted as Commissioner and is going to retire from the AND ent Injunction for restraining the defendants service benefits/retirement benefits of the defendant before payment of the aforesaid amount of permanent alimony of Rs. 36,00,000/- and the outstanding allowance of Rs. 8,69,512/- Rs. 44,69,512/- illegally, arbitrarily and the rights and interest of the plaintiff.” In the supra suit the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 seeking the hereinafter extracted interim “Application under order 39 rules 1 & 2 read with section 151 interim injunction for restraining the respondents No.2 to 5 from releasing the service benefits/ the respondent before payment of the aforesaid amount of permanent alimony of Rs.36 Lac and the outstanding dues/ arrears of maintenance allowance of approximately, totaling Rs.44,69,512/-illegally, arbitrarily and detrimental to the rights and interest of the under Order 39 seeking the hereinafter extracted interim SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 22. was passed by the Family Court, which came to be impugned before this Court by the defendant revision petition, this Court vide order dated 29.07.2022 directed the official respondents to release an amount of Rs.8,00,000/ wife. Upon the said amount having been transferred to the wife in her bank account, CR 23. husband by filing reply and upon consideration of rival submissions, the same was part whereof is extracted hereinafter noticing that Rs.20,000/ and order dated 07.09.2018 under husband’s orders for release of the said amount to the wife order regarding husband is not aggrieved by the same and neither has he preferred any appeal before appeal by the wife -18- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 applicant, till final disposal of the suit.” That vide order dated 05.05.2021, was passed by the Family Court, which came to be impugned before this Court by the defendant-husband by way of CR revision petition, this Court vide order dated 29.07.2022 directed the official respondents to release an amount of Rs.8,00,000/ wife. Upon the said amount having been transferred to the wife in her bank CR-1433-2021 was withdrawn by the husband on 09.09.2022. The application for ad-interim husband by filing reply and upon consideration of rival submissions, the same was partly allowed vide impugned order dated part whereof is extracted hereinafter. that maintenance stands awarded to the Rs.20,000/- per month, vide order dated 04.10 and order dated 07.09.2018 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. husband’s willingness and readiness to pay orders for release of the said amount to the wife egarding the maintenance amount husband is not aggrieved by the same and neither has he preferred any before this Court thereagainst nor filed cross by the wife. “During the course of arguments, the respondent did not dispute the claim of applicant with regard to amount of maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/ applicant, till final disposal of the suit.” vide order dated 05.05.2021, an ex parte injunction order was passed by the Family Court, which came to be impugned before this husband by way of CR-1433-2021. In the said revision petition, this Court vide order dated 29.07.2022 directed the official respondents to release an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff wife. Upon the said amount having been transferred to the wife in her bank 2021 was withdrawn by the husband on 09.09.2022. interim injunction was contested by the husband by filing reply and upon consideration of rival submissions, the allowed vide impugned order dated 13.03.2023, operative The learned Family Court, after stands awarded to the plaintiff-wife at the rate of order dated 04.10.2017 under the Act of 2005 Section 125 Cr.P.C., and relying upon readiness to pay the maintenance amount, passed orders for release of the said amount to the wife. The part of the impugned is thus, consensual in nature. The husband is not aggrieved by the same and neither has he preferred any or filed cross-objections in the present of arguments, the respondent did not dispute the claim of applicant with regard to amount of Rs.20,000/- per month awarded in injunction order was passed by the Family Court, which came to be impugned before this 1. In the said revision petition, this Court vide order dated 29.07.2022 directed the official in favour of the plaintiff- wife. Upon the said amount having been transferred to the wife in her bank injunction was contested by the husband by filing reply and upon consideration of rival submissions, the , operative The learned Family Court, after wife at the rate of 2017 under the Act of 2005 relying upon passed he part of the impugned . The husband is not aggrieved by the same and neither has he preferred any objections in the present SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 24. that despite the competent courts, the husband her and she ha maintenance voluntary retirement before his due date of superannuation and is also trying to flee from the jurisdiction of the Family Court concerned after withdrawing the entire amount of his terminal benefits. Seeking to protect her claim, she has prayed for creating a charge upon the service benefits of the husband. 25. order and submits that the husban maintenance amount to the wife, which has since been ordered to to her and she has no benefits. Moreover, the claim under Section 18 of the Hindu Adop -19- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 the petition under section 125 Cr.PC 07.09.2018 and also in the petition under D.V.. dated 04.10.2017, and he is ready to pay maintenance amount to respondent accordingly. As such, the remaining due amount payable @ Rs.20,000/- per month is ordered to be released in favour of the applicant out of the service/ retirement bene respondent No.l and after respondent No.2 to 5 are directed to release the remaining amount of service/ retirement benefits of respondent No.1 in his favour. Application, in hand, stands disposed of accordingly.” The appellant in this case, viz. Hema Lata that despite the orders for maintenance having been passed in her favour by the competent courts, the husband has avoided pay her and she had to take recourse to proceed maintenance. It is her pleaded case that the husband is trying to take voluntary retirement before his due date of superannuation and is also trying to flee from the jurisdiction of the Family Court concerned after rawing the entire amount of his terminal benefits. Seeking to protect her claim, she has prayed for creating a charge upon the service benefits of the husband. Learned counsel for the husband has defended the impugned order and submits that the husband had expressed his readiness to pay the maintenance amount to the wife, which has since been ordered to to her and she has no right over the balance amount . Moreover, the claim under Section 18 of the Hindu Adop the petition under section 125 Cr.PC vide order dated 07.09.2018 and also in the petition under D.V.. Act vide order dated 04.10.2017, and he is ready to pay maintenance amount to respondent accordingly. As such, the remaining due amount per month is ordered to be released in favour of the applicant out of the service/ retirement benefits of er deducting the said amount, respondent No.2 to 5 are directed to release the remaining amount of service/ retirement benefits of respondent No.1 in his favour. Application, in hand, stands disposed of The appellant in this case, viz. Hema Lata (plaintiff), has urged orders for maintenance having been passed in her favour by s avoided payment of any amount to proceedings for recovering the arrears of that the husband is trying to take voluntary retirement before his due date of superannuation and is also trying to flee from the jurisdiction of the Family Court concerned after rawing the entire amount of his terminal benefits. Seeking to protect her claim, she has prayed for creating a charge upon the service benefits of Learned counsel for the husband has defended the impugned d had expressed his readiness to pay the maintenance amount to the wife, which has since been ordered to be released over the balance amount of his service/retiral . Moreover, the claim under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and , has urged orders for maintenance having been passed in her favour by amount to arrears of that the husband is trying to take voluntary retirement before his due date of superannuation and is also trying to flee from the jurisdiction of the Family Court concerned after rawing the entire amount of his terminal benefits. Seeking to protect her claim, she has prayed for creating a charge upon the service benefits of Learned counsel for the husband has defended the impugned d had expressed his readiness to pay the be released of his service/retiral tion and SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 Maintenance Act is yet to be adjudicated upon. It is further urged that the suit for creating charge upon the property of the husband awarded under the Act of 2005 as well as Cr.P.C., sustainable jurisdiction, seeking recovery of arrears of maintenance she cannot simultaneously seek two remedies husband had since retired on 31.10.2021 and his ser been released due to the impugned order having been stayed by this Court vide order dated 27.03.2023. 26. consideration upon the respective submissions advanced is substance in the submissions of the husband. claimed in the suit would show that they are in two parts. of the plaintiff Adoption and Maintenance Act; from releasing the payment of permanent alimony and arrears of maintenance sought as ad part of the relief in the be in the nature of the another aspect secured are (i) which were awarded under the Act of 2005 and Cr.P.C., respectively. 27. -20- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 Maintenance Act is yet to be adjudicated upon. It is further urged that the suit for creating charge upon the property of the husband awarded under the Act of 2005 as well as Cr.P.C., sustainable in law. The plaintiff-wife has already invoked the competent jurisdiction, seeking recovery of arrears of maintenance she cannot simultaneously seek two remedies husband had since retired on 31.10.2021 and his ser been released due to the impugned order having been stayed by this Court vide order dated 27.03.2023. Having heard both the sides and consideration upon the respective submissions advanced s substance in the submissions of the husband. claimed in the suit would show that they are in two parts. of the plaintiff-wife for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act; and second from releasing the service benefits/retirement benefits payment of permanent alimony and arrears of maintenance sought as ad-interim injunction is the same as rt of the relief in the main suit. It is trite law that interim relief should not be in the nature of the main relief sought in the case. However, there is another aspect that needs to be examined. secured are (i) that are yet to be determined in the present suit and (ii) those were awarded under the Act of 2005 and Cr.P.C., respectively. It is not disputed that amount of maintenance at the rate of Maintenance Act is yet to be adjudicated upon. It is further urged that the suit for creating charge upon the property of the husband for maintenance awarded under the Act of 2005 as well as Cr.P.C., is misconceived and not wife has already invoked the competent jurisdiction, seeking recovery of arrears of maintenance and even otherwise she cannot simultaneously seek two remedies. It is further submitted that the husband had since retired on 31.10.2021 and his service benefits have not been released due to the impugned order having been stayed by this Court Having heard both the sides and given our anxious consideration upon the respective submissions advanced, we find that there s substance in the submissions of the husband. A perusal of the reliefs claimed in the suit would show that they are in two parts. Firstly, the claim wife for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu secondly, for permanent injunction /retirement benefits of the husband before payment of permanent alimony and arrears of maintenance. The relief interim injunction is the same as prayed through the second It is trite law that interim relief should not relief sought in the case. However, there is . The claimed amounts sought to be yet to be determined in the present suit and (ii) those were awarded under the Act of 2005 and Cr.P.C., respectively. that amount of maintenance at the rate of Maintenance Act is yet to be adjudicated upon. It is further urged that the for maintenance and not wife has already invoked the competent and even otherwise It is further submitted that the vice benefits have not been released due to the impugned order having been stayed by this Court given our anxious , we find that there A perusal of the reliefs the claim wife for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu permanent injunction before The relief the second It is trite law that interim relief should not relief sought in the case. However, there is The claimed amounts sought to be yet to be determined in the present suit and (ii) those that amount of maintenance at the rate of SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 Rs.20,000/ and the Act of 2005. being regularly paid and he has further expressly stated in his affidavit filed on 01.12.2022, before the court below, that he is also ready to clear the arrears of maintenan been withheld. wife (appellant in this appeal) has already enforcing the same and provisions for the said purpose, both extracted hereinafter for refe -21- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 Rs.20,000/- has been awarded to the wife both under Section 125 and the Act of 2005. The husband has claimed that the aforesaid amount is being regularly paid and he has further expressly stated in his affidavit filed on 01.12.2022, before the court below, that he is also ready to clear the arrears of maintenance but he is unable to do so, as his service benefits have been withheld. Pursuant to the making of the aforesaid orders, the plaintiff wife (appellant in this appeal) has already enforcing the same and for recovery of arrears of provisions for the said purpose, both under extracted hereinafter for reference. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 20. Monetary reliefs.— application under sub-section (1) of section 12,the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a r domestic violence and such relief may include, but not limited to,— (a) the loss of earnings; (b) the medical expenses; (c) the loss caused due to the destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of the aggrieved person; and (d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being (2) The monetary relief granted under this section shall be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed. has been awarded to the wife both under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The husband has claimed that the aforesaid amount is being regularly paid and he has further expressly stated in his affidavit filed on 01.12.2022, before the court below, that he is also ready to clear the ce but he is unable to do so, as his service benefits have Pursuant to the making of the aforesaid orders, the plaintiff wife (appellant in this appeal) has already instituted proceedings for recovery of arrears of maintenance. The relevant under the Act of 2005 and Cr.P.C., Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 —(1) While disposing of an section (1) of section 12,the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may include, but not limited (a) the loss of earnings; (b) the medical expenses; (c) the loss caused due to the destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of the (d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force. (2) The monetary relief granted under this section shall be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed. Cr.P.C. The husband has claimed that the aforesaid amount is being regularly paid and he has further expressly stated in his affidavit filed on 01.12.2022, before the court below, that he is also ready to clear the ce but he is unable to do so, as his service benefits have Pursuant to the making of the aforesaid orders, the plaintiff- proceedings for maintenance. The relevant are SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 -22- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 (3) The Magistrate shall have the power to order an appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may require. (4) The Magistrate shall send a copy of the order for monetary relief made under sub application and to the in charge of the police station within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the respondent resides. (5) The respondent shall pay the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved person within the period specified in the order under sub-section (1). (6) Upon the failure on the part of the respondent to make payment in terms of the order under sub Magistrate may direct the employer or a debtor of the respondent, to directly pay to the aggrieved person or to deposit with the court a portion of the due to or accrued to the credit of the respondent, which amount may be adjusted towards the monetary relief payable by the respondent. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.—(1) xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month’s allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or made: Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one (3) The Magistrate shall have the power to order an mp sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may (4) The Magistrate shall send a copy of the order for monetary relief made under sub-section (1) to the parties to the arge of the police station within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the respondent resides. (5) The respondent shall pay the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved person within the period specified in the order failure on the part of the respondent to make payment in terms of the order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may direct the employer or a debtor of the respondent, to directly pay to the aggrieved person or to deposit with the court a portion of the wages or salaries or debt due to or accrued to the credit of the respondent, which amount may be adjusted towards the monetary relief payable by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence the whole or any part of each month’s allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 -23- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 year from the date on which it became due: Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. Explanation.—If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife’s refusal to live with him. xxxx xxxx 421. Warrant for levy of fine. has been sentenced to pay a fine, the Court passing the sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in either or both of the following ways, that is to say, it may (a) issue a warrant for the attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender; (b) issue a warrant to the Collector of the district, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter: Provided that, if the sentence directs that in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall be imprisoned, and if such offender has undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default, no Court shall issue such warrant unless reasons to be recorded in writing, it considers it necessary so to do, or unless it has made an order for the payment of expenses or compensation out of the fine under section 357. (2) The State Government may make rules regulating the manner in which warrants under clause (a) of sub are to be executed, and for the summary determination of any claims made by any person other than the offender in respect of any property attached in execution of such warrant. (3) Where the Court issues a warrant to the Collector under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the Collector shall realise the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate issued under such law: Provided that no such warrant shall be executed by the arrest or detention in prison of the offender. 422. Effect of such warrant. clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 421 by any Court may year from the date on which it became due: ovided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section g such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife’s refusal to live with him. 421. Warrant for levy of fine.—(1) When an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine, the Court passing the sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in either or both of the following ways, that is to say, it may— (a) issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging (b) issue a warrant to the Collector of the district, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or Provided that, if the sentence directs that in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall be imprisoned, and if such offender has undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default, no Court shall issue such warrant unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, it considers it necessary so to do, or unless it has made an order for the payment of expenses or compensation out of the fine under section 357. (2) The State Government may make rules regulating the r in which warrants under clause (a) of sub-section (1) are to be executed, and for the summary determination of any claims made by any person other than the offender in respect of any property attached in execution of such warrant. sues a warrant to the Collector section (1), the Collector shall realise the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate hat no such warrant shall be executed by the arrest or detention in prison of the offender. 422. Effect of such warrant.—A warrant issued under section (1) of section 421 by any Court may SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 28. orders awarding maintenance amount under the Act of 2005 could only be enforced in the manner prescribed herein above and thus, the plea of the service/ retirement benefits of the husband keeping in view the categoric stand taken by the husband in his reply to the ad interim injunction application and pay the arrears of maintenance amount of his own volition, before the court below, we deem it appropriate not to interfere in that aspect order, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, to secure the plaintiff determined in the suit, interim injunction cannot be e -24- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 be executed within the local jurisdiction of such shall authorise the attachment and sale of any such property outside such jurisdiction, when it is endorsed by the District Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction such property is found. 423. Warrant for levy of fine issued by a Court i territory to which this Code does not extend. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code or in any other law for the time being in force, when an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine by a Criminal Court in any territory to which this Code does not extend and the Court passing the sentence issues a warrant to the Collector of a district in the territories to which this Code extends, authorising him to realise the amount as if it were an arrear of land revenue, such warrant shall be deemed to issued under clause (b) of sub Court in the territories to which this Code extends, and the provisions of sub-section (3) of the said section as to the execution of such warrant shall apply accordingly. A perusal of the supra statutory provisions would show that the orders awarding maintenance amount under the Act of 2005 could only be enforced in the manner prescribed herein above and thus, the plea of the plaintiff-wife seeking to simultaneo service/ retirement benefits of the husband keeping in view the categoric stand taken by the husband in his reply to the ad interim injunction application and also having pay the arrears of maintenance amount of his own volition, before the court below, we deem it appropriate not to interfere in that aspect in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, to secure the plaintiff-wife as permanent alimony/maintenance determined in the suit, is also ill-conceived. interim injunction cannot be equated with those enshrined under Order 3 be executed within the local jurisdiction of such Court, and it shall authorise the attachment and sale of any such property outside such jurisdiction, when it is endorsed by the District Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction such property is 423. Warrant for levy of fine issued by a Court in any territory to which this Code does not extend.— Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code or in any other law for the time being in force, when an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine by a Criminal Court in any does not extend and the Court passing the sentence issues a warrant to the Collector of a district in the territories to which this Code extends, authorising him to realise the amount as if it were an arrear of land revenue, such warrant shall be deemed to be a warrant issued under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 421 by a Court in the territories to which this Code extends, and the section (3) of the said section as to the execution of such warrant shall apply accordingly. A perusal of the supra statutory provisions would show that the orders awarding maintenance amount under the Act of 2005 or Cr.P.C. could only be enforced in the manner prescribed herein above and thus, the wife seeking to simultaneously create a charge over service/ retirement benefits of the husband, is misconceived. However, keeping in view the categoric stand taken by the husband in his reply to the also having expressed his readiness to pay the arrears of maintenance amount of his own volition, before the court below, we deem it appropriate not to interfere in that aspect of the impugned in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Moreover, taking recourse to t provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, to secure the sums claimed permanent alimony/maintenance, which are yet to be conceived. The provisions for grant of ad quated with those enshrined under Order 3 A perusal of the supra statutory provisions would show that the Cr.P.C., could only be enforced in the manner prescribed herein above and thus, the usly create a charge over is misconceived. However, keeping in view the categoric stand taken by the husband in his reply to the pressed his readiness to pay the arrears of maintenance amount of his own volition, before the court of the impugned aking recourse to the ed by , which are yet to be The provisions for grant of ad quated with those enshrined under Order 38 SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 Civil Procedure 29. appeal fails and is resultantly 30. 31. would not prejudice the right of the wife to seek her appropriate remedy, if so advised, be it for enforcement of the orders granting maintenance or for attachment before judgment adjudicated in the suit, in accordance with law. TA-184-2023 32. Sharma seeking transfer of civil suit titled as others’ from the Court of Sh. Himanshu Singh, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, to some other Court of competent jurisdiction at Bathinda. 33. 2021, seeking the hereinafter extrac -25- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 rocedure Code, pertaining to attachment before judgment. In the light of the above discussion, in summa, the instant appeal fails and is resultantly, dismissed. No order as to costs. It is, however, clarified that the dismissal of the instant appeal would not prejudice the right of the wife to seek her appropriate remedy, if so advised, be it for enforcement of the orders granting maintenance or for attachment before judgment, regarding h adjudicated in the suit, in accordance with law. 2023 This transfer application has been preferred by Hem Sharma seeking transfer of civil suit titled as from the Court of Sh. Himanshu Singh, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, to some other Court of competent jurisdiction at Bathinda. The applicant herein filed the above captioned civil suit in April 2021, seeking the hereinafter extracted reliefs: “Suit for declaration to the effect that the alleged adoption deed no. 284 dated 25.1.2016 executed between the defendant no.1 and the defendants no.2&3 the adoption of the defendant no. 4 by the defendant no.1 from the defendants no.3&4 is totally wrong, illegal and void, without any competence, without adopting proper procedure as per law, result of fraud the defendants with the plaintiff and the same has been brought into existence by the defendants in collusion connivance with each other to cause wrongful loss to the , pertaining to attachment before judgment. In the light of the above discussion, in summa, the instant is, however, clarified that the dismissal of the instant appeal would not prejudice the right of the wife to seek her appropriate remedy, if so advised, be it for enforcement of the orders granting maintenance or for ding her claims that are yet to be adjudicated in the suit, in accordance with law. This transfer application has been preferred by Hem L Sharma seeking transfer of civil suit titled as ‘Hem Lata vs. Rishi Kumar and from the Court of Sh. Himanshu Singh, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, to some other Court of competent jurisdiction at The applicant herein filed the above captioned civil suit in April ted reliefs:- Suit for declaration to the effect that the alleged adoption deed no. 284 dated 25.1.2016 executed between and the defendants no.2&3 regarding he adoption of the defendant no. 4 by the defendant no.1 no.3&4 is totally wrong, illegal null and void, without any competence, without adopting proper procedure as per law, result of fraud committed by the defendants with the plaintiff and the same has been brought into existence by the defendants in collusion and connivance with each other to cause wrongful loss to the In the light of the above discussion, in summa, the instant is, however, clarified that the dismissal of the instant appeal would not prejudice the right of the wife to seek her appropriate remedy, if so advised, be it for enforcement of the orders granting maintenance or for yet to be Lata ata vs. Rishi Kumar and from the Court of Sh. Himanshu Singh, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, to some other Court of competent jurisdiction at The applicant herein filed the above captioned civil suit in April Suit for declaration to the effect that the alleged adoption deed no. 284 dated 25.1.2016 executed between regarding he adoption of the defendant no. 4 by the defendant no.1 ull and void, without any competence, without adopting by the defendants with the plaintiff and the same has been and connivance with each other to cause wrongful loss to the SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 34. presently residing at Bathinda for the last about 10 years and has matrimonial dispute with her husband (respondent No.1 herein). It is fur averred that other litigation is already husband at Bathinda. Respondent No.1, after superannuating from service is residing at Sirsa, which is his home town. The applicant apprehends danger to her life at the han been openly threatened the above captioned suit that it is very inconvenient for her to travel from Bathinda to Sirsa to pursue -26- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 plaintiff and to deprive the plaintiff from the properties of the defendant no. l as well as service benefits of the defendant no.l who is working as Excise and Taxation Officer and as such the alleged adoption deed is ineffective and inoperative as against the rights of the same is liable to be set aside and further declaration to the effect that the defendant no.4, who the defendants no. 2 & the defendant no.l and the movable/ immovable properties of the defendant no.l on the basis of the alleged adoption deed no.284 dated 25.1.2016. Suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant no.l from transferring properties, standing in the name of the defendant no. 1, and also service benefits of the defendant no. 1, in favour of the defendant no. 4 illegally, arbitrarily and detrimental to the rights and interest of the plaintiff who is wedded wife of the defendant no. 1. It is pleaded in the transfer application that the applicant is presently residing at Bathinda for the last about 10 years and has matrimonial dispute with her husband (respondent No.1 herein). It is fur averred that other litigation is already pending husband at Bathinda. Respondent No.1, after superannuating from service is residing at Sirsa, which is his home town. The applicant apprehends danger to her life at the hands of respondent No.1 and his family members been openly threatened with dire consequences the above captioned suit. The applicant has appeared in person and urged that it is very inconvenient for her to travel from Bathinda to Sirsa to pursue plaintiff and to deprive the plaintiff from the properties of the defendant no. l as well as service benefits of the defendant no.l who is working as Excise and Taxation alleged adoption deed is ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff and the same is liable to be set aside and further declaration to the effect that the defendant no.4, who is a biological son of 3, has absolutely no concern with the defendant no.l and the movable/ immovable properties of the defendant no.l on the basis of the alleged adoption deed no.284 dated 25.1.2016. AND Suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant no.l from transferring his movable or immovable properties, standing in the name of the defendant no. 1, and also service benefits of the defendant no. 1, in favour of the defendant no. 4 illegally, arbitrarily and detrimental to the rights and interest of the plaintiff who is a legally wedded wife of the defendant no. 1.” It is pleaded in the transfer application that the applicant is presently residing at Bathinda for the last about 10 years and has matrimonial dispute with her husband (respondent No.1 herein). It is further pending between the applicant and her husband at Bathinda. Respondent No.1, after superannuating from service is residing at Sirsa, which is his home town. The applicant apprehends danger ds of respondent No.1 and his family members having with dire consequences, thus, she is unable to pursue . The applicant has appeared in person and urged that it is very inconvenient for her to travel from Bathinda to Sirsa to pursue plaintiff and to deprive the plaintiff from the properties of the defendant no. l as well as service benefits of the defendant no.l who is working as Excise and Taxation alleged adoption deed is ineffective and the same is liable to be set aside and further declaration to the biological son of utely no concern with the defendant no.l and the movable/ immovable properties of the defendant no.l on the basis of the alleged adoption Suit for permanent injunction for restraining the his movable or immovable properties, standing in the name of the defendant no. 1, and also service benefits of the defendant no. 1, in favour of the defendant no. 4 illegally, arbitrarily and detrimental to a legally It is pleaded in the transfer application that the applicant is presently residing at Bathinda for the last about 10 years and has ther between the applicant and her husband at Bathinda. Respondent No.1, after superannuating from service is residing at Sirsa, which is his home town. The applicant apprehends danger having , thus, she is unable to pursue . The applicant has appeared in person and urged that it is very inconvenient for her to travel from Bathinda to Sirsa to pursue SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 the matter and, thus prays that the present application be allowed and the above captioned suit be transferred to a Court of co Bathinda. 35. other litigation as well before this Court, by this common judgment. In an appeal preferred by the applicant No.FAO-1446 directed the registry with the said appeal. appearing in the connected appeals the applicant are incorrect and not sustainable in law. It has been pointed out that the above captioned suit was instituted on 23.04.2021 and the issues were framed plaintiff’s evidence. suit as many as 24 hearings had taken place upto proceedings were adjourned in deference to the order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the lear Moreover, as per the own pleadings of the applicant, the entire cause of action has accrued to the applicant at Sirsa and all the defendants are also residing at relevant to the 36. respondent No.1, who have entered appearance in the connected appeals and perused the record. -27- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 the matter and, thus prays that the present application be allowed and the above captioned suit be transferred to a Court of co Bathinda. Perusal of the record shows that the applicant has been pursuing other litigation as well before this Court, common judgment. In an appeal preferred by the applicant 1446-2023, a coordinate bench vide order dated 24.07.202 directed the registry of this Court to attach the with the said appeal. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 appearing in the connected appeals, have s the applicant are incorrect and not sustainable in law. It has been pointed out that the above captioned suit was instituted on 23.04.2021 and the issues framed vide order dated 05.09.2022. Thereafter, the trial is pe plaintiff’s evidence. It is further submitted that since the institution of the as many as 24 hearings had taken place upto proceedings were adjourned in deference to the order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the learned single Judge in the instant transfer application. Moreover, as per the own pleadings of the applicant, the entire cause of action has accrued to the applicant at Sirsa and all the defendants are also residing at Sirsa. The necessary corollary is that a relevant to the lis is also at Sirsa. We have heard the applicant and the counsel for the husband respondent No.1, who have entered appearance in the connected appeals and perused the record. the matter and, thus prays that the present application be allowed and the above captioned suit be transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Perusal of the record shows that the applicant has been pursuing other litigation as well before this Court, two of which are being disposed of common judgment. In an appeal preferred by the applicant being 2023, a coordinate bench vide order dated 24.07.2023 had attach the present transfer application Learned counsel for respondent No.1, who are have submitted that the pleas raised by the applicant are incorrect and not sustainable in law. It has been pointed out that the above captioned suit was instituted on 23.04.2021 and the issues vide order dated 05.09.2022. Thereafter, the trial is pending for It is further submitted that since the institution of the as many as 24 hearings had taken place upto 30.10.2023, whereafter, the proceedings were adjourned in deference to the order dated 12.10.2023 udge in the instant transfer application. Moreover, as per the own pleadings of the applicant, the entire cause of action has accrued to the applicant at Sirsa and all the defendants are also The necessary corollary is that all the material evidence We have heard the applicant and the counsel for the husband respondent No.1, who have entered appearance in the connected appeals and the matter and, thus prays that the present application be allowed and the mpetent jurisdiction at Perusal of the record shows that the applicant has been pursuing being disposed of being had present transfer application who are ubmitted that the pleas raised by the applicant are incorrect and not sustainable in law. It has been pointed out that the above captioned suit was instituted on 23.04.2021 and the issues nding for It is further submitted that since the institution of the 30.10.2023, whereafter, the proceedings were adjourned in deference to the order dated 12.10.2023, udge in the instant transfer application. Moreover, as per the own pleadings of the applicant, the entire cause of action has accrued to the applicant at Sirsa and all the defendants are also ll the material evidence We have heard the applicant and the counsel for the husband- respondent No.1, who have entered appearance in the connected appeals and SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 37. matters relating to transfer of litigation, the convenience of a woman, ought to be considered. In 197, the Apex Court observed that number of transfer petitions are filed by women taking advantage of the leniency shown by the further observed was being misused by women and held consider each petition on its merit. The said view has since been followed in a number of cases. Court in TA Singh, decided on 07.08.2024, since reported in 2024 NCPHHC 101765. Thus, there is no dispute to the proposition that the convenience of a woman, ought to be considered, but the same is not a thumb rule and each case has to be decided, keeping in view 38. has been pursuing her litigation before this Court in person. She has been regularly commuting from Bathinda to Chandigarh to contest her cases has never raised a between Sirsa to Chandigarh is 230 kms. residence case, while deciding the present transfer application. 39. to reflect upon the events -28- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 No doubt, in a plethora of judgments, it has been held that in matters relating to transfer of litigation, the convenience of a woman, ought to be considered. In Anindita Das vs. Sr , the Apex Court observed that number of transfer petitions are filed by women taking advantage of the leniency shown by the further observed therein that it was clear that leniency of the Supreme Court was being misused by women and held, consider each petition on its merit. The said view has since been followed in number of cases. A similar view has been taken in TA-1023-2023 titled as Manpreet Kaur and another vs. Davin , decided on 07.08.2024, since reported in 2024 NCPHHC 101765. Thus, there is no dispute to the proposition that the convenience of a woman, ought to be considered, but the same is not a thumb rule and each case has to be decided, keeping in view its factual matrix. In the present case, it would be noteworthy that the applicant has been pursuing her litigation before this Court in person. She has been regularly commuting from Bathinda to Chandigarh to contest her cases has never raised any grouse on that count Sirsa and Bathinda is 98 kms, whereas the distance from Bathinda to Chandigarh is 230 kms. Thus, the distance of the Courts from residence of the applicant would not be a valid consideration while deciding the present transfer application. Moreover, the applicant has not placed on record any material reflect upon the events that have caused her to apprehend threat from judgments, it has been held that in matters relating to transfer of litigation, the convenience of a woman, ought Anindita Das vs. Srijit Das, reported in (2006) 9 SCC , the Apex Court observed that number of transfer petitions are filed by women taking advantage of the leniency shown by the said Court. It that it was clear that leniency of the Supreme Court , that the Court is now required to consider each petition on its merit. The said view has since been followed in A similar view has been taken by a single Bench of this Manpreet Kaur and another vs. Davin , decided on 07.08.2024, since reported in 2024 NCPHHC 101765. Thus, there is no dispute to the proposition that the convenience of a woman, ought to be considered, but the same is not a thumb rule and each case has to its factual matrix. , it would be noteworthy that the applicant has been pursuing her litigation before this Court in person. She has been regularly commuting from Bathinda to Chandigarh to contest her cases, and count. The distance of the Courts , whereas the distance from Bathinda Thus, the distance of the Courts from would not be a valid consideration in the present while deciding the present transfer application. Moreover, the applicant has not placed on record any material that have caused her to apprehend threat from judgments, it has been held that in matters relating to transfer of litigation, the convenience of a woman, ought (2006) 9 SCC , the Apex Court observed that number of transfer petitions are filed by Court. It is that it was clear that leniency of the Supreme Court that the Court is now required to consider each petition on its merit. The said view has since been followed in by a single Bench of this Manpreet Kaur and another vs. Davinder , decided on 07.08.2024, since reported in 2024 NCPHHC 101765. Thus, there is no dispute to the proposition that the convenience of a woman, ought to be considered, but the same is not a thumb rule and each case has to , it would be noteworthy that the applicant has been pursuing her litigation before this Court in person. She has been , and The distance of the Courts , whereas the distance from Bathinda Thus, the distance of the Courts from the in the present Moreover, the applicant has not placed on record any material that have caused her to apprehend threat from SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 respondent No.1, except for the bald statement made in the application The applicant has also not referred to any instance of accosted by substantiate the aforesaid ground on which transfer has been sought. 40. manner in which litigation is A conscious effort has been made by all concerned justice to ensure that access to Courts is made available to every citizen, at their door step through video conferencing. The Apex Court in Vijaya Venketesh guidance concerned. of the Constitution of India has framed Conferencing for Courts’, which have been notified on 10.12.2021. Accordingly, the same have been incorporated in Part H of Chapter 1 of the Rules and Orders of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Volume V. correction slip No.82, Rules/II.D4 dated 10 also been incorporated for subordinate Courts in the States of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh. Thus, in view of the same, the applicant is not required to physically be present before the Courts at Sirsa on each and every date and the case through video conferencing. 41. -29- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 respondent No.1, except for the bald statement made in the application. There is no material on record to substantiate the aforesaid plea. The applicant has also not referred to any instance of accosted by her husband (respondent No.1 herein) ntiate the aforesaid ground on which transfer has been sought. It may also be noticed that post COVID manner in which litigation is being conducted has undergone a sea change. A conscious effort has been made by all concerned to ensure that access to Courts is made available to every citizen, at door step through video conferencing. The Apex Court in Vijaya Venketesh, reported in (2018) 1 SCC 1, as far as appearance of the parties through video conferencing is concerned. Even this Court in exercise of powers under Article of the Constitution of India has framed Conferencing for Courts’, which have been notified on 10.12.2021. Accordingly, the same have been incorporated in Part H of Chapter 1 of the Rules and Orders of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Volume V. correction slip No.82, Rules/II.D4 dated 10 also been incorporated for subordinate Courts in the States of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh. Thus, in view of the same, the applicant is not required to physically be present before the Courts at Sirsa on each and date and she can cause her appearance and the case through video conferencing. We have given thoughtful consideration to the various judicial respondent No.1, except for the bald statement made in the instant transfer here is no material on record to substantiate the aforesaid plea. The applicant has also not referred to any instance of misadventure or threat d (respondent No.1 herein), so as to even remotely ntiate the aforesaid ground on which transfer has been sought. It may also be noticed that post COVID-19 pandemic, the conducted has undergone a sea change. A conscious effort has been made by all concerned with administration of to ensure that access to Courts is made available to every citizen, at door step through video conferencing. The Apex Court in Santhini vs. (2018) 1 SCC 1, has given sufficient as far as appearance of the parties through video conferencing is in exercise of powers under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution of India has framed rules titled as ‘Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts’, which have been notified on 10.12.2021. Accordingly, the same have been incorporated in Part H of Chapter 1 of the Rules and Orders of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Volume V. Vide correction slip No.82, Rules/II.D4 dated 10.12.2021, the said Rules have also been incorporated for subordinate Courts in the States of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh. Thus, in view of the same, the applicant is not required to physically be present before the Courts at Sirsa on each and can cause her appearance and conveniently proceed with We have given thoughtful consideration to the various judicial transfer here is no material on record to substantiate the aforesaid plea. threat so as to even remotely 19 pandemic, the conducted has undergone a sea change. with administration of to ensure that access to Courts is made available to every citizen, at Santhini vs. given sufficient as far as appearance of the parties through video conferencing is 225 and 227 Video Conferencing for Courts’, which have been notified on 10.12.2021. Accordingly, the same have been incorporated in Part H of Chapter 1 of the Vide .12.2021, the said Rules have also been incorporated for subordinate Courts in the States of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh. Thus, in view of the same, the applicant is not required to physically be present before the Courts at Sirsa on each and proceed with We have given thoughtful consideration to the various judicial SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO-3251 TA-184-2023 pronouncements regarding transfer of litigation and the factual matrix of the present case and are not inclined to accept the present transfer application. 42. for transfer the civil suit instituted by the applicant herein. Accordingly, the transfer application 43. and the transfer application stand dismissed. 44. (SURESHWAR THAKUR) May 16, 2025 sumit.k -30- 3251-2021, FAO-1446-2023 & 2023 pronouncements regarding transfer of litigation and the factual matrix of the sent case and are not inclined to accept the present transfer application. In the light of the aforesaid observations, for transfer the civil suit instituted by the applicant herein. Accordingly, the transfer application being bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed. The cumulative result of the aforesaid is that both the appeals the transfer application stand dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether Reportable : pronouncements regarding transfer of litigation and the factual matrix of the sent case and are not inclined to accept the present transfer application. In the light of the aforesaid observations, no case is made out for transfer the civil suit instituted by the applicant herein. Accordingly, the bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed. of the aforesaid is that both the appeals the transfer application stand dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (VIKAS SURI) JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No pronouncements regarding transfer of litigation and the factual matrix of the sent case and are not inclined to accept the present transfer application. no case is made out for transfer the civil suit instituted by the applicant herein. Accordingly, the of the aforesaid is that both the appeals SUMIT KUMAR 2025.05.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment