Ramender v. Priyanka And Another
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 26.02.2024 RAMENDER ......PETITIONER Vs.
PRIYANKA AND ANOTHER .........RESPONDENTS
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Present:
Mr. Ravi Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN J.
1.
Firstly, it is to be noticed here that in the previous order, the date of the order has inadvertently been written as 12th January, 2023, whereas it should have been 12th January, 2024.
2.
The error is a typographical error. Consequently, the same is corrected. Office to do the necessary corrections in the original order. 3.
!
!
"
# $"
%"! #
#& $"
%"
'
& ( ) #
#
% ! *
+
!,+ -.
# ! / ! !
#
%"1 !
!
-2- %,! #-2
#
! #
%"! # ! # #
!! 2#
#
%"! #! #
2
! #
0
#& $"
3 $",
%"! #-& $",
%" -42 !
!
#
& 5 ! #
#
#
!
6.
On the last date of hearing, the following order was passed by this Bench:- "A copy of the affidavit regarding income, assets and liabilities in view of the directions of the Hon'bl;e Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another (2021) 2 SCC 32, if submitted before the Family Court, be also placed on record.
In the meantime, the petitioner to show his bonafide shall deposit some amount by way of demand draft in favour of the respondents as he is stated to be working as Constable in Haryana Police and is alleged to be earning Rs. 50,000/- per month.
7.
Today, upon query put to learned counsel for the petitioner, neither he has placed on record any affidavit nor he could show his bona fide in favour of the respondents.
-38.
Counsel for the petitioner could not point out that before proceedings them ex parte, service of the petitioner was not effected. A copy of the order dated 01.10.2021 whereby the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte has not been placed on record. The
#
# !
2
/!
#
9.
As noticed in the previous order, the petitioner is working as a Constable in Haryana Police and is alleged to be earning 50,000/- per month. As per the statement of Narender Singh, HC (PW-3) Assistant Pay Clerk, C.P. Office, Sector 21, Faridabad, the gross salary of the petitioner is 52,266/- per month which after deduction comes to 47,931/-. It has been observed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, that the petitioner did not bother to contest the claim of the respondents and consequently proceeded against ex parte. The income of the petitioner has been successfully established by the testimony of Narender Singh, HC (PW-3). It is not mentioned anywhere in the petition that respondent No. 1-wife is doing any job. The relationship between the parties is not disputed by the petitioner. 10.
2
! 2 #
% "! # #
!!
!
"! #
!
0 6" 0 # ' 6"
2
"! # ! / 7
-4-
! #
!# #
!
1
#
! #
%"! #
%"
2+89 0
#:
' ;<,-, -= >
# >
'
( !
#
/ #
>
# >
#
#!
#
6
5 ! #
# # !"
! ( ?
15.
Pending miscellaneous application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
February 26, 2024 (HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN) nitin JUDGE Whether Speaking Yes Whether reportable No