Skip to content


Present: Mr. R.K.Bansal Advocate Vs. Jaswinder Singh and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
AppellantPresent: Mr. R.K.Bansal Advocate
RespondentJaswinder Singh and Others
Excerpt:
.....roma ---petitioner versus jaswinder singh and others ---respondents coram: hon'ble mrs.justice rekha mittal present: mr.r.k.bansal, advocate for the petitioner *** 1. whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. 2. to be referred to the reporter or not?. 3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. *** rekha mittal, j. the present petition lays challenge to orders dated 20.2.2013 and dated 14.6.2010 passed by the additional sessions judge, fast track court (ad hoc).jalandhar and sub divisional judicial magistrate, nakodar whereby the application filed by the petitioner under section 12(1) of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 (for short “the act”.) for an order of residence in terms of section 19 of the act was.....
Judgment:

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.

Revision No.2542 of 2013 Date of Decision: July 02, 2014 Roma ---Petitioner versus Jaswinder Singh and others ---Respondents Coram: Hon'ble MRS.Justice Rekha Mittal Present: Mr.R.K.Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner *** 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not?.

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

*** REKHA MITTAL, J.

The present petition lays challenge to orders dated 20.2.2013 and dated 14.6.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (Ad hoc).Jalandhar and Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”.) for an order of residence in terms of Section 19 of the Act was dismissed by the trial court and the appeal filed before the Court of Sessions was partly allowed by granting monthly rent of Rs.4000/- under Section 19(f) of the Act.

Counsel for the petitioner is fair enough to concede that there is no documentary evidence in regard to petitioner ever having resided in house situated at village Gehlewal in regard whereof she had claimed right Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.07.09 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.

Revision No.2542 of 2013 -2- of residence by claiming the said property to be 'shared household'.

As the petitioner failed to prime facie substantiate her plea that she ever resided in the alleged shared household, I do not find any error much less illegality in the impugned order passed by the Court in appeal allowing monthly sum of Rs.4000/- towards rental to be paid by her husband in discharge of his obligation to provide residential accommodation to his wife.

In view of the above, the petition is dismissed in limine.

(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE July 02, 2014 PARAMJIT Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.07.09 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //