IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

119

CR-1189-2022

Reserved on 04.08.2022

Date of Decision : 10.08.2022

Megha Rana

.....Petitioner

Versus

Kanwar Samir

.....Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present :

Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner.

ALKA SARIN, J.

The present civil revision petition has been preferred by the

decree-holder/wife against the order dated 11.10.2021 passed by the Family

Court, Panchkula dismissing her execution petition as unsatisfied with

liberty to file a fresh execution petition on the same cause of action as and

when any particulars of the judgement-debtor/husband regarding his address

in India or any property in India comes in the notice of the decree-

holder/wife.

The parties to the lis were married on 16.01.2011. However, the

marriage did not work out for them and vide judgement dated 20.05.2014

(Annexure P-1) the Additional District Judge, Panchkula allowed the

divorce petition filed by the decree-holder/wife under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court dissolved the marriage of the

parties and also directed the judgement-debtor/husband to pay permanent

alimony and maintenance of Rs.60 lakhs to the decree-holder/wife.

The decree-holder/wife filed an execution petition (Annexure P-3) for

recovery of the amount of permanent alimony and maintenance. The

execution petition was sent to the Civil Court at Balachaur, District SBS

JITENDER KUMAR

2022.08.10 15:53

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

Chandigarh

Nagar for attachment of the properties of the judgement-debtor/husband.

Third party objections were filed by one Inderjit Singh contending that the

properties sought to be attached were owned by him and not by the

judgement-debtor/husband. The said third party objections were dismissed

by the Civil Court at Balachaur vide order dated 06.09.2021 (Annexure P-6).

On the same date, vide a separate order (Annexure P-7), the Civil Court at

Balachaur held that the judgement-debtor/husband was not owner in

possession of any property mentioned in the list of property supplied by the

decree-holder/wife and therefore the file be sent back to the Court of the

District Judge, Panchkula. After receipt of the file by the Family Court,

Panchkula the impugned order dated 11.10.2021 was passed dismissing the

execution petition as unsatisfied with liberty to file a fresh execution petition

on the same cause of action as and when any particulars of the judgement-

debtor/husband regarding his address in India or any property in India comes

in the notice of the decree-holder/wife. Hence, the present civil revision

petition.

Learned counsel for the decree-holder/wife has contended that

both the Civil Court at Balachaur and the Family Court, Panchkula have

erred in passing the impugned orders dated 06.09.2021 and 11.10.2021.

According to counsel the decree-holder/wife has not received a penny as

alimony and permanent maintenance despite there being a judgement and

decree in her favour.

Heard.

While passing the impugned order dated 11.10.2021 the Family

Court, Panchkula inter-alia held that “As per record on the case file the

judgement-debtor is living in United Kingdom and therefore, it has been

JITENDER KUMAR

2022.08.10 15:53

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

Chandigarh

concluded by the court at Balachaur that he has no property in his name at

Balachaur as per the list of properties furnished by the decree-holder.

Moreover, he has no property at Panchkula and he does not reside at

Panchkula. Therefore, at this stage it is not possible to execute the

judgement and decree in question and the present execution petition is

dismissed as unsatisfied. However, as and when an