CRM-M-30310 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 127 Bhupinder Pal Singh Pritpal Kaur CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. 1. 13.04.2026 MNT/52/2025 titled ‘ 125 Cr.P.C. complete financial affidavit and leave 10 of Family 2. married on 02.04.2023 and a girl child was born to them on 20.09.2024 Petitioner was resid moved to Canada. Due to marital discord, respondent No. India and filed complaints and litigation against the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before learned Family Court, Sonipat. In that case, the petitioner appeared and initially engaged a counsel who represented him till 05.12.2025 and thereafter 15.10.2025, 30310-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Bhupinder Pal Singh VERSUS Pritpal Kaur and another CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Mr. Ankit Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner **** Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. Petitioner seeks quashing of orders dated 21.02.2026 and 13.04.2026 of learned Principal Judge, Family Court Sonipat MNT/52/2025 titled ‘Pritpal Kaur vs. Bhupinder Pal Singh The prayer is to direct respondent No.1 ancial affidavit and leave to serve interrogatories Family Court Act read with Order XI Rule 1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties were 02.04.2023 and a girl child was born to them on 20.09.2024 Petitioner was resident of Canada and after m moved to Canada. Due to marital discord, respondent No. India and filed complaints and litigation against the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before learned Family Court, Sonipat. In that case, the petitioner appeared and initially engaged a counsel who represented him till 05.12.2025 and thereafter, never appeared on his behalf. On petitioner filed an application under Section 2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-30310-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:26.05.2026 …Petitioner ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL , Advocate for the petitioner. s quashing of orders dated 21.02.2026 and pal Judge, Family Court Sonipat in Pritpal Kaur vs. Bhupinder Pal Singh’ under Section respondent No.1-wife to produce to serve interrogatories under Section Court Act read with Order XI Rule 1 of CPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties were 02.04.2023 and a girl child was born to them on 20.09.2024. ent of Canada and after marriage, respondent No.1 also moved to Canada. Due to marital discord, respondent No.-1-wife returned to India and filed complaints and litigation against the petitioner including one under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before learned Family Court, Sonipat. In that case, the petitioner appeared and initially engaged a counsel who represented never appeared on his behalf. On petitioner filed an application under Section 93 BNSS and (O&M) .2026 Petitioner espondents s quashing of orders dated 21.02.2026 and in under Section e ection Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties were . also wife returned to including one under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before learned Family Court, Sonipat. In that case, the petitioner appeared and initially engaged a counsel who represented never appeared on his behalf. On 93 BNSS and KAPIL 2026.05.28 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30310 Section 10 of the Family Court Act read seeking direction to the wife for production of comple and seeking leave to serve interrogatories Apex Court in concealed her various bank accounts, statements of accounts, domestic saving instruments, LIC saving certificates, d 21.02.2026, when the matter was listed for filing reply while the petitioner was abroad, the wif affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner dismissed his application by marking presence of Kapil Dev Advocate who was not even present in the Court. Order dated 21.02.2026, of learned Fami illegal, perverse and violative of principal of natural justice. 3. separate applications on 16.03 seeking recalling of order dated 21.0 principle of natural justice and the second objecting to the proceedings being conducted in disregard of mandatory directions in (2021) 2 SCC 324 Supreme Court in ‘ Another’, 1977(4) SCC 137, ‘Madhu Limaye vs. The State of Maharashtra Gujrat and Another’ Pande and others vs. Uttam and another’, 1999(3) SCC 134 even though the orders under challenge were interlocutory, inherent powers could be invoked for quashing the i 30310-2026 (O&M) Section 10 of the Family Court Act read with Order XI Rule 1 of CPC, seeking direction to the wife for production of comple and seeking leave to serve interrogatories, a Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 concealed her various bank accounts, statements of accounts, domestic saving instruments, LIC saving certificates, d when the matter was listed for filing reply while the petitioner abroad, the wife abruptly filed reply. Learned Family C affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner dismissed his application by marking presence of Kapil Dev Advocate who was not even present in the Court. Order dated 21.02.2026, of learned Fami illegal, perverse and violative of principal of natural justice. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner then filed tw separate applications on 16.03.2026 before learned Family Court seeking recalling of order dated 21.02.2026 on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice and the second objecting to the proceedings being conducted in disregard of mandatory directions in 2021) 2 SCC 324. Learned counsel refers to the decisions of Hon’ble reme Court in ‘Amar Nath and others vs. State of Haryana and , 1977(4) SCC 137, ‘Madhu Limaye vs. The State of Maharashtra’, 1977(4) SCC 551, ‘K.K. Patel and Another vs. State of Gujrat and Another’, 2000(6) SCC 195 and in ande and others vs. Uttam and another’, 1999(3) SCC 134 even though the orders under challenge were interlocutory, inherent powers could be invoked for quashing the interlocutory orders. It was urged that 2026 (O&M) 2 with Order XI Rule 1 of CPC, seeking direction to the wife for production of complete financial affidavit , as per law settled by Hon’ble 2021) 2 SCC 324 as the wife had concealed her various bank accounts, statements of accounts, domestic saving instruments, LIC saving certificates, divorce proceedings etc. On when the matter was listed for filing reply while the petitioner abruptly filed reply. Learned Family Court, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner dismissed his application by marking presence of Kapil Dev Advocate who was not even present in the Court. Order dated 21.02.2026, of learned Family Court was illegal, perverse and violative of principal of natural justice. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner then filed two .2026 before learned Family Court, first 2.2026 on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice and the second objecting to the proceedings being conducted in disregard of mandatory directions in Rajnesh Vs. Neha, Learned counsel refers to the decisions of Hon’ble Amar Nath and others vs. State of Haryana and , 1977(4) SCC 137, ‘Madhu Limaye vs. The State of , 1977(4) SCC 551, ‘K.K. Patel and Another vs. State of 2000(6) SCC 195 and in ‘Rajendra Kumar Sitaram ande and others vs. Uttam and another’, 1999(3) SCC 134, to submit that even though the orders under challenge were interlocutory, inherent powers nterlocutory orders. It was urged that with Order XI Rule 1 of CPC, te financial affidavit s per law settled by Hon’ble as the wife had concealed her various bank accounts, statements of accounts, domestic ivorce proceedings etc. On when the matter was listed for filing reply while the petitioner without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner dismissed his application by marking presence of Kapil Dev Advocate who was not even was o , first 2.2026 on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice and the second objecting to the proceedings being Rajnesh Vs. Neha, Learned counsel refers to the decisions of Hon’ble Amar Nath and others vs. State of Haryana and , 1977(4) SCC 137, ‘Madhu Limaye vs. The State of , 1977(4) SCC 551, ‘K.K. Patel and Another vs. State of Rajendra Kumar Sitaram , to submit that even though the orders under challenge were interlocutory, inherent powers nterlocutory orders. It was urged that KAPIL 2026.05.28 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30310 vide order dated 13.04.2026, petitioner’s application for recall consider the conceding existence of production of relevant documents orders dated directed to produce the entire details and last three years account of all her bank Toronto Dominion Bank, CIBC along with details and saving instruments. 4. filed by respondent No. appearance and moved application Annexure P seeking direction to the wife for leave to serve interrogatories under Section 10 of Family Court Act read with Order XI Rule 1 Sonipat on 21.02.2026 of the petitioner declaration in her affidavit regarding her bank accoun to disclose the of interrogatories. The respondent maintaining one account with Central Bank of India and other maintained by the petitioner closed by her before marriage and all other documents were in possession of the petitioner 30310-2026 (O&M) ide order dated 13.04.2026, learned Family Court erroneously treated petitioner’s application for recall as a review petition. The court failed to consider the admissions made by respondent No.1 existence of undisclosed bank accounts production of relevant documents nor initiated 21.02.2026 and 13.04.2026 be set aside directed to produce the entire details and last three years account of all her bank accounts, including ICICI Bank Toronto Dominion Bank, CIBC along with details and saving instruments. Record shows that the petition under Section 125 Cr.P. filed by respondent No.-1 wife on 03.03.2025 appearance and moved application Annexure P seeking direction to the wife for complete financial affidavit and seeking leave to serve interrogatories under Section 10 of Family Court Act read with Order XI Rule 1 of CPC. The case fixed before learned Family Court at Sonipat on 21.02.2026, when reply to the application was filed. of the petitioner-husband was that the respondent declaration in her affidavit regarding her bank accoun the litigation in Canada. He, thus of interrogatories. The respondent-wife filed reply saying that she was only maintaining one account with Central Bank of India and other maintained by the petitioner-husband; ICICI Bank account was already closed by her before marriage and all other documents were in possession of the petitioner-husband. 2026 (O&M) 3 learned Family Court erroneously treated as a review petition. The court failed to made by respondent No.1-wife in her reply undisclosed bank accounts, and neither directed nor initiated any inquiry. Thus, impugned be set aside and respondent No.1 be directed to produce the entire details and last three years account statements ncluding ICICI Bank, Royal Bank of Canada Toronto Dominion Bank, CIBC along with details and records of domestic petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was 03.03.2025. Petitioner-husband put in appearance and moved application Annexure P-3, under Section 93 of BNSS complete financial affidavit and seeking leave to serve interrogatories under Section 10 of Family Court Act read . The case fixed before learned Family Court at ly to the application was filed. Primary plea husband was that the respondent-wife had made false declaration in her affidavit regarding her bank accounts and had also failed sought permission to serve a set wife filed reply saying that she was only maintaining one account with Central Bank of India and other accounts were husband; ICICI Bank account was already closed by her before marriage and all other documents were in possession of learned Family Court erroneously treated as a review petition. The court failed to in her reply neither directed inquiry. Thus, impugned and respondent No.1 be statements , Royal Bank of Canada records of domestic was husband put in 3, under Section 93 of BNSS complete financial affidavit and seeking leave to serve interrogatories under Section 10 of Family Court Act read . The case fixed before learned Family Court at rimary plea wife had made false ts and had also failed a set wife filed reply saying that she was only accounts were husband; ICICI Bank account was already closed by her before marriage and all other documents were in possession of KAPIL 2026.05.28 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30310 5. counsel for the petitioner parents of the petitioner is also marked in the order. After hearing and going through the record, learned Family court held that detailed reply had been filed by the respondent place any specific interrogatories/set of the application was disposed of . 6. the order was violative of princip judicial record learned counsel Vakalatnama is marked in the order, this Court cannot record a find against judicial record. 7. to the petitioner/ interrogatories the remedy of servi documents from the opposite party in terms of the procedure provided in Order XI, 1908, 21.02.2026, which was rightly declined as opportunity of hearing already been provided. The second application Annexuure P objections to the proceedings being conducted in disregard of Hon’ble Apex Court directions in conduct of the one after the other and even sought lodging of FIR under Sections 30310-2026 (O&M) Order dated 21.02.2026 was passed in the presence of the r the petitioner-husband Sh. Kapil Dev, Advocate parents of the petitioner is also marked in the order. After hearing and going through the record, learned Family court held that detailed reply had been filed by the respondent-wife, yet granted liberty place any specific interrogatories/set of interrogatories the application was disposed of . The argument of learned counsel for the order was violative of principles of natural justice is belied by the judicial record which carries presumption of correctness. Since presence of counsel for the petitioner/husband, who had never withdrawn his Vakalatnama is marked in the order, this Court cannot record a find against judicial record. Even otherwise, order dated 21.02.2026 which granted liberty petitioner/husband to place specific interrogatories, cannot be taken adverse to the husband. Instead of availing remedy of serving interrogatories and seeking production of relevant documents from the opposite party in terms of the procedure provided in Order XI, 1908, he moved an application for recalling order dated 21.02.2026, which was rightly declined as opportunity of hearing already been provided. The second application Annexuure P to the proceedings being conducted in disregard of Hon’ble Apex Court directions in Rajnesh Vs. Neha, was also rightly declined noticing the conduct of the petitioner/husband who was repeatedly moving applications one after the other and even sought lodging of FIR under Sections 2026 (O&M) 4 was passed in the presence of the husband Sh. Kapil Dev, Advocate. Presence of parents of the petitioner is also marked in the order. After hearing and going through the record, learned Family court held that detailed reply had been liberty to the petitioner-husband to interrogatories, if he so desired and The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner/husband that of natural justice is belied by the which carries presumption of correctness. Since presence of husband, who had never withdrawn his Vakalatnama is marked in the order, this Court cannot record a finding Even otherwise, order dated 21.02.2026 which granted liberty husband to place specific interrogatory/set of , cannot be taken adverse to the husband. Instead of availing and seeking production of relevant documents from the opposite party in terms of the procedure provided in moved an application for recalling order dated 21.02.2026, which was rightly declined as opportunity of hearing had already been provided. The second application Annexuure P-5 raising to the proceedings being conducted in disregard of Hon’ble Apex was also rightly declined noticing the husband who was repeatedly moving applications one after the other and even sought lodging of FIR under Sections 227, 229, was passed in the presence of the . Presence of parents of the petitioner is also marked in the order. After hearing and going through the record, learned Family court held that detailed reply had been husband to , if he so desired and husband that of natural justice is belied by the which carries presumption of correctness. Since presence of husband, who had never withdrawn his ing Even otherwise, order dated 21.02.2026 which granted liberty /set of , cannot be taken adverse to the husband. Instead of availing and seeking production of relevant documents from the opposite party in terms of the procedure provided in moved an application for recalling order dated had 5 raising to the proceedings being conducted in disregard of Hon’ble Apex was also rightly declined noticing the husband who was repeatedly moving applications 227, 229, KAPIL 2026.05.28 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30310 236 and 246 of BNS against the wife. Learned Family Court that summary in limine as desired by the husband and the husband was at liberty to produce all documents which the wife concealed from the court to the controversy. It has also been observed in the order dated 13.04.2026 that “the husband has rig 8. interrogatories in terms of directions of Hon’ble Apex Court in Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 approached t There can be no denying that a quashing even though interference from the vice of perversity, warranting interference in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 9. 10. avail the liberty granted to him by learned Family Court, Sonipat vide order dated 21.02.2026. 11. 26.05.2026 Kapil 30310-2026 (O&M) 236 and 246 of BNS against the wife. Learned Family Court summary proceedings under Section 144 BNSS could not be d as desired by the husband and the husband was at liberty to produce all documents which the wife concealed from the court to the controversy. It has also been observed in the order dated 13.04.2026 that “the husband has right to serve interrogatories, if so advised”. Prayer of the husband to serve interrogatories/set of interrogatories in terms of directions of Hon’ble Apex Court in 2021) 2 SCC 324, has been granted yet approached this Court instead of availing the liberty granted by the court. There can be no denying that a quashing petition would be maintainable even though an order may be interlocutory interference has to be made out. The orders under ch from the vice of perversity, warranting interference in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Dismissed. It is however made clear that the petitioner would still be free to avail the liberty granted to him by learned Family Court, Sonipat vide order dated 21.02.2026. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Whether Reportable : 2026 (O&M) 5 236 and 246 of BNS against the wife. Learned Family Court has observed proceedings under Section 144 BNSS could not be dismissed as desired by the husband and the husband was at liberty to produce all documents which the wife concealed from the court, but relevant to the controversy. It has also been observed in the order dated 13.04.2026 interrogatories, if so advised”. Prayer of the husband to serve interrogatories/set of interrogatories in terms of directions of Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. has been granted yet, the petitioner has the liberty granted by the court. petition would be maintainable order may be interlocutory, however, a clear case for The orders under challenge do not suffer from the vice of perversity, warranting interference in the exercise of It is however made clear that the petitioner would still be free to avail the liberty granted to him by learned Family Court, Sonipat vide order Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No has observed ismissed as desired by the husband and the husband was at liberty to but relevant to the controversy. It has also been observed in the order dated 13.04.2026 Prayer of the husband to serve interrogatories/set of Rajnesh Vs. has the liberty granted by the court. petition would be maintainable owever, a clear case for allenge do not suffer from the vice of perversity, warranting interference in the exercise of It is however made clear that the petitioner would still be free to avail the liberty granted to him by learned Family Court, Sonipat vide order (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) KAPIL 2026.05.28 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document