Harish Kumar v. Sunita Rani

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH C.R. No.2052 of 2016 Date of Decision.18.03.2016 Harish Kumar .......Petitioner Vs.

Smt. Sunita Rani ........Respondent

Present:

Mr. Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1.

There is no need for intervention of consideration of application for interim maintenance determined in pendency of proceedings. It appears that the matrimonial proceeding itself has been disposed of and there is nothing pending now. The order of maintenance is self-limiting in character and the correctness need not be considered in revision petition.

2.

The counsel says that if notice is issued, there can be a talk of settlement. The settlement can be worked out even outside the Court and it is unecessary to retain this case only for consideration of whether there is going to be a settlement or not. 3.

The revision petition is dismissed.

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 18, 2016 Pankaj* PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.03.21 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document