Satvir Singh v. Ramandeep Kaur

IN THE HIGH COURT O F PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR-4418-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 19.05.2025 Satvir Singh ....Petitioner

VERSUS

Ramandeep Kaur ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :

Mr. Khushkaran K. Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tanvir Singh Grewal, Advocate for the respondent. ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral) 1.

Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 11.07.2024 whereby warrants of attachment of property of the petitioner were issued for 01.08.2024.

2.

Vide order dated 07.08.2024, notice of motion was issued and the operation of the impugned order was directed to be kept in abeyance. On 12.05.2025 the following order was passed :

" On the previous date of hearing i.e. 22.01.2025 none had put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Today a request for an adjournment has been made on behalf of the arguing counsel for the petitioner on the ground that there is a medical emergency. The said request is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent who has pointed out that the petitioner was granted liberty to file an application for modification of the maintenance amount which has been filed, however, there is no stay of JITENDER KUMAR 2025.05.20 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CR-4418-2024 -2the earlier order granting maintenance and, therefore, the execution was filed. The learned counsel for the respondent has further pointed out that not a single penny has been paid towards maintenance till date. Adjourned to 19.05.2025.

Interim order to continue.

Meanwhile, the petitioner shall bring a Demand Draft of ₹50,000/- in the name of the respondent towards litigation expenses to be handed over to the learned counsel for the respondent on the next date of hearing. To be shown in the urgent list."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is not in a position to make the payment towards litigation expenses or towards maintenance.

4.

In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not in a position to pay the maintenance or the litigation expenses, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the present revision petition.

5.

Dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. ( ALKA SARIN ) 19.05.2025 JUDGE jk NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO JITENDER KUMAR 2025.05.20 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh