Rajesh Kumar Bansal v. Kiran Devi

-1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision.09.04.2019 Rajesh Kumar Bansal

...Petitioner

Vs Kiran Devi

...Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Lochab, Advocate for the respondent.

-.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) C.M. No.6187-CII of 2019 The application is allowed.

Reply by way of affidavit on behalf of respondent is taken on record.

C.R. No.8259 of 2017 Mr. Ashish Grover, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in execution petition under Order 21 Rule 33 CPC, both parties on 09.09.2017 suffered following statement:- "Kirna Devi Vs Rajesh Kumar Exe.09,2017 Stated that I withdraw the objections filed by me against the applicant for execution of the applicant because I am going to join the society of the applicant in compliance of decree dtd 24.9.2015, today itself and I may kindly be given some time of fortnight for arranging

-2accommodation for taking my wife and daughter with me in the same.

RO&AC Rajesh Bansal.

(Ajaib Singh, UIN -PB-0120) District Judge, Family Court, Barnala.

Kiran Devi Vs.Rajesh Kumar Statement of Kirna Devi/ complainant Stated that I will start residing with my husband Rajesh Kumar in the rented accommodation w.e.f. 1.10.2017 and thereafter, will withdraw the present application.

RO&AC (Ajaib Singh) Kiran Devi District Judge,Family Court, 9.9.2017 Barnala."

Without assigning any reason, the trial Court ordered for attachment of the property and an opportunity must have been afforded to give reason for not allegedly adhering to the order or statement made.

Mr. Lochab, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-wife submitted that respondent-wife is intended to go with the petitioner but he stated that he would be coming only once or twice in a month.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. The order under challenge, in my view, cannot be stated to be a reasonable order. In fact, it is bereft of reasoning. Explanation of the husband ought to have been taken regarding status in purport of statement extracted above. The District

-3Judge as Family Court should circumspect in such sensitive matters. The impugned order is set aside. The family court shall proceed in terms of the statements made by the parties in accordance with law and not in the manner and mode as has been done. The revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE April 09, 2019 Pankaj* Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes Whether Reportable No