CR No.1058 of 1998 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.1058 of 1998
Date of Decision: 31 - 7 - 2009
Krishan Gopal Kalra ....Petitioner
v.
Smt.Punam Kalra ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
***
Present: Mr.Vaneet Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Vinod Kumar Kaushal for
Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate
for the respondent.
***
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA (ORAL)
Petitioner Krishan Gopal Kalra was married with Punam Kalra
on 3.2.1988 according to Hindu rites. Out of this wedlock, a daughter,
namely, Mrignalini was born on 25.10.1988. It is alleged that Punam Kalra
was thrown out of the matrimonial home and was ill treated for want of
dowry. Petitioner-husband had filed a petition for grant of decree of divorce
on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Ex-parte decree was granted in
favour of husband on 12.6.1991. Aggrieved wife filed an application for
setting aside ex parte judgment and decree on the ground that fraud was
played upon her, as no service was effected upon her. Order of ex parte
decree was set aside by the Additional District Judge on 17.2.1998. The
present revision petition has been filed against that order.
CR No.1058 of 1998 [2]
On the last date of hearing, counsel for the parties were orally
told that parties should remain present in Court. Today petitioner Krishan
Gopal Kalra and respondent Punam Kalra along their only child Mrignalini
are present in Court. Counsel for the parties have stated that parties have
arrived at a compromise. Affidavit of Krishan Gopal Kalra and Punam
Kalra have been submitted. They are marked as Mark `A’ and Mark `B’.
They be read as part of this order.
Counsel for the parties have jointly made a statement that
present revision petition be decided in view of the compromise arrived
between the parties. Therefore, impugned order passed by the learned
Additional District Judge on 17.2.1988 whereby ex parte decree was set
aside is upheld. Punam Kalra has stated that she will not prosecute the
petitioner-husband and petitioner-husband has agreed that as per agreement
he will buy a a house in the name of Punam Kalra worth Rs.9 lacs and will
pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to her.
Counsel for the parties on instructions from Krishan Gopal
Kalra and Punam Kalra have stated that parties shall continue to visit each
other. However, Punam Kalra will not object to petitioner’s staying with
Nirmal Kumari to whom he had married during the period when decree of
divorce was subsisting.
In view of the compromise arrived between the parties, the
present petition is disposed off.
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA )
July 31, 2009. JUDGE
RC
