Davinder Kaur vs Jaswinder Singh on 8 July, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH


                         Civil Revision No.3708 of 2009 (O&M)
                         Date of Decision: July 08, 2007



Davinder Kaur                               ...........Petitioner

                         Versus

Jaswinder Singh                             ..........Respondent



Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina


Present:    Mr.P.S.Ahluwalia,Advocate,for the petitioner.
                 --

Sabina, J. (oral)

C.M. No.15480-CII of 2009

C.M. is allowed. Petitioner is permitted to place on record

the true copies of Annexures.

Civil Revision No.3708 of 2009

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Davinder Kaur-petitioner has filed this petition under Article

227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the order dated

8.4.2009(Annexure P1) vide which the petition under Section 13-B of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) has been

dismissed under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Davinder Kaur and Jaswinder Singh filed petition under

Section 13-B of the Act for dissolution of their marriage by decree of

divorce on the basis of mutual consent. Statements of the parties were

recorded on 6.9.2008 and thereafter, the case was adjourned to a date after

Civil Revision No.3708 of 2009 -2-
six months for again recording the statements of the parties. However, on

8.4.2009, counsel for the respondent-Jaswinder Singh-petitioner No.2,

Sh.K.K.Vohra, Advocate made a statement that Jaswinder Singh was not

interested in getting his statement recorded because he intended to file a

petition under Section 9 of the Act. Since, one of the petitioners did not

want to continue with the petition under Section 13-B of the Act, the

petition was liable to be dismissed. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior

Division) had erred in ordering the dismissal of the petition in default under

Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In a petition under Section

13-B of the Act, both the parties are petitioners and, thus, none of the

parties can be said to be a defendant. Although the impugned order dated

8.4.2009 is not happily worded yet the petition under Section 13-B of the

Act was liable to be dismissed as one of the petitioners Jaswinder Singh was

not interested in pursuing with the said petition and intended to file a

petition under Section 9 of the Act. The petition was liable to be dismissed

though for different reasons. Hence, no interference is called for.

Dismissed.

( Sabina )
Judge

July 08, 2009
arya