Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MANJIT KAUR versus KULWANT SINGH

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Manjit Kaur v. Kulwant Singh - COCP-827-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 4562 (21 July 2006)

COCP No.827 of 2005 -: 1 :-

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

COCP No.827 of 2005

Date of decision: July 27, 2006.

Manjit Kaur

...Petitioner(s)

v.

Kulwant Singh

...Respondent(s)

Present: Shri Anil Chawla, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Shri K.S. Bhullar, Advocate for the respondent.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

The respondent has filed a matrimonial appeal bearing FAO No.75-M of 2003 in this Court. In that appeal, the petitioner moved an application for interim maintenance, which was disposed of by this Court on March 21, 2005 with a direction to the respondent-husband to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance as well as Rs.7500/- as litigation expenses.

Alleging non-compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed this contempt petition.

In response to the show cause notice, Learned Counsel for the respondent tendered a demand draft No.569421 dated 8.2.2006 for a sum of Rs.35,000/- on April 20, 2006 in favour of the petitioner. In addition, it is stated by Learned Counsel for the respondent that Rs.20,000/- were COCP No.827 of 2005 -: 2 :-

deposited by the respondent-husband in the Registry of this Court also, which have since been withdrawn by the petitioner.

Today, the respondent has brought a demand draft bearing No.570312 dated 8.7.2006, drawn on State Bank of Patiala, High Court Branch, in the sum of Rs.26,000/- in favour of the petitioner which includes Rs.10,000/- as costs of this litigation, which were directed to be paid to the petitioner vide order dated 7.6.2006.

In this view of the matter, nothing remains due towards the petitioner. Rather, the respondent has come up with a stand that a sum of Rs.1,000/- has been paid in excess, if the arrears of maintenance are calculated upto June 30, 2006.

Be that as it may, it is neither desirable nor expedient that the parties should initiate one after the other proceedings, especially in order to secure compliance of the order dated 21.3.2005 passed by this Court.

Learned Counsel for the respondent states that respondent- husband shall keep on depositing the amount of maintenance if the petitioner opens a bank account in Chandigarh and supplies him the particulars thereof.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner shall open an account at Chandigarh so that the respondent shall have the facility to deposit the arrears of maintenance in the said account.

Learned counsel further undertakes that the particulars of the bank account shall be supplied to the respondent within a period of one month.

Upon getting the requisite information, the respondent is directed to continue to deposit the maintenance amount in the said bank COCP No.827 of 2005 -: 3 :-

account of the petitioner on or before 10th day of every calender month.

With these observations and directions, this petition is disposed of.

Rule discharged.

July 27, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.