Smt. Prem Lata v. Shri Dalbir Singh
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 24 Apr 2008
- Bench
- SURYA KANT
Provisions considered
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 s. 13
Key paragraphs
- Para 11. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. Present: Petitioner in person. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This…
Judgment
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. Present: Petitioner in person. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This Revision Petition is preferred by an old hapless woman, challenging the order dated 6.2.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, whereby her prayer for exemption from appearing in the court before 12 noon on the dates of hearing and/or to provide security to her and her grown up children, has been declined being not maintainable, though, liberty has been granted to her to engage a counsel if she does not want herself to appear and also to approach the Deputy Commissioner or the Superintendent of Police at Jhajjar to provide her security. Some adverse observations concerning human behaviour, imputed to the petitioner in the impugned order, have also been sought to be expunged.
The petitioner's 70 years old husband, Dalbir Singh – respondent, has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of his marriage by a decree of divorce. While the respondent – husband is the resident of a village in district Jhajjar itself, the petitioner – wife, who too is an old woman, is residing along with her children and parents in Delhi. In the absence of her counsel, the petitioner appears to have failed to put-forth before the learned trial court her physical and mental agony that she went through in travelling all the way from Delhi to Jhajjar to contest the divorce proceedings. She appears to have sentimentally broken down inside the court room itself after seeing the “reward” in the form of divorce proceedings from her husband at this age particularly when she claims to have single-handedly brought up the children all by herself, without any help or assistance from the respondent – husband, who is alleged to have sold off all the immovable properties as well.
If the factual narration made by the petitioner contains even a grain of truth, the learned trial court ought to have sympathized with her as a victim though with no prejudice towards her husband. Apparently, both of them need counselling through the good offices of the matrimonial/family court. The financial crunch, more so when the petitioner is visibly left with no immovable assets and/or sources of livelihood, also appears to have added to her miseries rendering her too helpless to engage a counsel. Since the nature of relief which I propose to grant to the petitioner is not likely to cause any prejudice to the respondent, no notice of motion is being issued to him. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this petition is disposed of with the following observations and clarificatory directions:- (i) the adverse observations made against the personality traits of the petitioner by the learned trial court in its order dated 6.2.2008 are ordered to be struck off from the judicial record; (ii) the petitioner may approach the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, who, in turn, is requested to provide her legal assistance through the aegis of the District Legal Services Authority and ensure that some competent lawyer is engaged to defend the petitioner in the petition filed by her husband; (iii) the petitioner may also approach the Superintendent of Police, Jhajjar, who, in turn, is directed to ensure that no untoward incident takes place as and when the petitioner is required to appear in the court at Jhajjar, especially when the petitioner has time and again alleged that the divorce petition has been filed by the respondent at the instigation of a group of land-grabbers who have already misappropriated the immovable properties of the respondent. The threat perception, if any, to the petitioner or her family members may be got assessed and consequential remedial measures be taken thereafter by the police authorities. Dasti. April 24, 2008. kadyan [ Surya Kant ] Judge
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 13.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 24 Apr 2008. The bench was SURYA KANT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.