IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :06.11.2025 SMT. REENU ... PETITIONER VERSUS DALIP ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. M.K. Sood, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- Judgment Debtor challenging the impugned order dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P- 5) passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridabad in Execution No. 284 of 2023, whereby objections filed by Judgment Debtor were dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the decree holder- husband and the judgment debtor-wife had jointly filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. However, the said petition was dismissed vide order dated 02.11.2022 as wife had failed to appear for second motion.

3. It is pertinent to note that at the time of first motion, as per the terms

₹

of settlement towards permanent alimony, an amount of 9,50,000/- was paid to

the judgment debtor-wife. However, since the wife failed to appear despite

repeated opportunities, the mutual consent divorce petition was ultimately

dismissed by the then Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, vide order dated 02.11.2022. The operative part of order dated 02.11.2022 is reproduced as under:-

“Petitioner No.1 is not present in person. It is informed by the counsel for the petitioner No.1 that she is not ready to appear before the court.

Heard. Since it was the last opportunity, therefore, further adjournment is not justified. It is a petition of under Section 13 B of HMA and i.e. divorce by mutual consent, and in case if one of the party does not appear before the court then court is left with no option except to dismiss the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. However, petitioner No.1 is directed to return the amount taken by her from the petitioner No.2 at the time of recording the statement of first motion within the period of two months, failing which petitioner No.2 shall have right to recover this amount through competent court of law alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from 02.01.2023 till actual realisation. File be consigned to record room.

4. It is, therefore, clear that while dismissing the petition, liberty was granted to the decree holder-husband to recover the amount paid at the time of the first motion, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the judgment debtor-wife. In the execution proceedings, the Executing Court directed repayment of the said amount with 6% interest in accordance with the order dated

02.11.2022.

5. The Judgment Debtor-petitioner, however, had opposed the execution proceedings on the sole ground that her application for maintenance is pending before the Family Court, and that she is entitled to adjust the maintenance amount against the sum already received by her. Neither the Executing Court nor this Court finds any merit in the said contention. The petitioner-JD’s right to claim maintenance is yet to be adjudicated, and it remains to be seen whether she is entitled to any such relief, which is the subject matter of consideration before the Family Court.

6. Accordingly, the amount of ₹

9,50,000/- received by the petitioner-

JD at the time of the first motion is liable to be refunded to the decree holder- respondent. However, the JD-petitioner shall be at liberty to recover any amount that may be awarded to her towards maintenance by the Family Court in future.

₹

In order to balance the equities, it is directed that the amount of 9,50,000/- be returned by the JD-petitioner, and in case of non-compliance, the same shall be recovered in accordance with law by the Executing Court. However, payment of interest at 6% per annum shall remain in abeyance till the decision of the maintenance application. To be adjusted/paid as per order of maintenance, if any. 7. It would also be appropriate to reque