(O&M)Neelam Rani v. Krishan Lal

C.R. No.810 of 1998 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.810 of 1998 (O&M) Date of Decision.05.02.2016 Neelam Rani .......Petitioner Vs.

Krishan Lal ......Respondent

Present:

Mr. Amaninder Preet, Advocate for the petitioner/legal aid counsel.

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) C.M.No.27181-CII of 2015 For the reasons stated in the application, the order passed on 27.11.2015 is recalled and the application for restoration is restored to its original number.

Application is allowed.

C.M. No.24357-CII of 2015 For the reasons stated in the application, order passed on 03.11.2015 is recalled and the revision petition is restored to its original number.

Application is allowed.

C.R. No.810 of 1998 1.

The petition for custody of a minor child born on 24.10.1990 had been ordered by the Senior Sub Judge Chandigarh. The order had been passed in favour of the father of the child ex parte. The mother of PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.02.08 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

C.R. No.810 of 1998 (O&M) -2the child had filed application to set aside the order and it was dismissed. The appeal filed was also dismissed. The revision petition is against the said order.

2.

The child born in the year 1990 must have attained the age of majority in 2008 itself and the custody issue becomes irrelevant. The revision petition does not require to be disposed of on merits and disposed of as having become infructuous.

3.

The counsel for the petitioner shall be entitled to the remuneration as per the scales provided by the Legal Services Authority. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 05, 2016 Pankaj* PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.02.08 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document