Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUNITA versus SMT.PATORI DEVI.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sunita v. Smt.Patori Devi. - CM-9073-CII-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 8643 (16 October 2006)

Civil Misc.No.9073-CII of 2006 in

F.A.O.No.1913 of 2006.

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

Civil Misc.No.9073-CII of 2006 in

F.A.O.No.1913 of 2006.

Date of decision:26.10.2006.

Sunita

...Appellant.

Versus

Smt.Patori Devi.

...Respondent.

...

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. N. Aggarwal.

...

Present: Mr.Arvind Singh Advocate for the appellant/applicant.

Mr.Rajesh Bansal Advocate for the respondent.

...

Judgment.

S. N. Aggarwal, J.

This application has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 862 days in filing the appeal.

Reply to this application was filed by the respondent. The application was opposed.

Arguments have been heard.

The facts of the case are that Smt.Sunita appellant was married to Rajesh Kumar and out of this wed-lock, one daughter Civil Misc.No.9073-CII of 2006 in

F.A.O.No.1913 of 2006.

namely Miss Jyoti was born. Rajesh Kumar died on which Smt.Patori Devi respondent filed a petition under the Guardian and Wards Act for the custody of her minor grand-daughter Miss Jyoti. The said petition was filed against the appellant. In the said petition, the parties compromised and as per the compromise, the appellant had agreed to hand over the custody of minor child Miss Jyoti to Smt. Patori Devi ( mother in law of the appellant and grand-mother of Miss. Jyoti). It was stated in the compromise that the appellant intended to re-marry and as per compromise Miss Jyoti and her property were to be looked after by her grand-mother Smt.Patori Devi ,respondent.

The Court of learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra accordingly decided the petition under the Guardian and Wards Act,vide judgment dated 20.9.2003 by which the custody of Miss.Jyoti was to be handed over to her grand-mother Smt. Patori Devi,respondent.

The present appeal has been filed by Smt.Sunita after the delay of 862 days. The reasons stated in the application are that she was under the shock due to untimely death of her husband and she came to know about this judgment only in the month of April,2006 when the custody of the minor daughter of the appellant was being taken by the respondent with the police help. This application is supported by an affidavit of the appellant. However, this version of the appellant is totally unbelievable. The petition under the Guardian and Wards Act has been decided by the Court after the parties had entered Civil Misc.No.9073-CII of 2006 in

F.A.O.No.1913 of 2006.

into a compromise and under the compromise, the appellant had agreed to part company of her minor daughter Miss Jyoti and to entrust the same to her grand-mother Smt. Patori Devi. The reason for this was that the appellant intended to re-marry. Therefore, the version of the appellant cannot be believed that she came to know about this judgment for the first time in April, 2006.

Delay of 862 days has not been explained at all and this application is accordingly dismissed.

October 26,2006. ( S. N. Aggarwal )

Jaggi 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.