HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH 127 Bhupinder Pal Singh Bhupinder Pal Singh v. O&M) CRM-M-30310-2026

Judgment

1. s quashing of orders dated 21.02.2026 and Petitioner seeks quashing of orders dated 21.02.2026 and s quashing of orders dated 21.02.2026 and

13.04.2026 of 13.04.2026 pal Judge, Family Court Sonipat learned Principal Judge, Family Court Sonipat MNT/52/2025 titled ‘Pritpal Kaur vs. Bhupinder Pal Singh MNT/52/2025 titled ‘ under Section Pritpal Kaur vs. Bhupinder Pal Singh’ under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The prayer is to direct respondent No.1 e respondent No.1-wife to produce complete financial affidavit and leave ancial affidavit and leave to serve interrogatories ection to serve interrogatories under Section 10 of Family Family Court Act read with Order XI Rule 1 Court Act read with Order XI Rule 1 of CPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties were Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties were Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties were . 02.04.2023 and a girl child was born to them on 20.09.2024. married on 02.04.2023 and a girl child was born to them on 20.09.2024 02.04.2023 and a girl child was born to them on 20.09.2024 Petitioner was resident of Canada and after m Petitioner was resid ent of Canada and after marriage, respondent No.1 also wife returned to moved to Canada. Due to marital discord, respondent No.-1-wife returned to moved to Canada. Due to marital discord, respondent No. moved to Canada. Due to marital discord, respondent No. including one India and filed complaints and litigation against the petitioner including one India and filed complaints and litigation against the petitioner India and filed complaints and litigation against the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before learned Family Court, Sonipat. In that under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before learned Family Court, Sonipat. In that under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before learned Family Court, Sonipat. In that under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before learned Family Court, Sonipat. In that case, the petitioner appeared and initially engaged a counsel who represented case, the petitioner appeared and initially engaged a counsel who represented case, the petitioner appeared and initially engaged a counsel who represented case, the petitioner appeared and initially engaged a counsel who represented never appeared on his behalf. On him till 05.12.2025 and thereafter, never appeared on his behalf. On never appeared on his behalf. On him till 05.12.2025 and thereafter

15.10.2025, petitioner filed an application under Section 93 BNSS and petitioner filed an application under Section 93 BNSS and CRM-M-30310 30310-2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2 with Order XI Rule 1 of CPC, Section 10 of the Family Court Act read with Order XI Rule 1 of CPC, with Order XI Rule 1 of CPC, Section 10 of the Family Court Act read te financial affidavit seeking direction to the wife for production of complete financial affidavit seeking direction to the wife for production of comple seeking direction to the wife for production of comple and seeking leave to serve interrogatories, a and seeking leave to serve interrogatories s per law settled by Hon’ble , as per law settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 Apex Court in as the wife had 2021) 2 SCC 324 as the wife had concealed her various bank accounts, statements of accounts, domestic concealed her various bank accounts, statements of accounts, domestic concealed her various bank accounts, statements of accounts, domestic concealed her various bank accounts, statements of accounts, domestic ivorce proceedings etc. On saving instruments, LIC saving certificates, divorce proceedings etc. On saving instruments, LIC saving certificates, d saving instruments, LIC saving certificates, d when the matter was listed for filing reply while the petitioner 21.02.2026, when the matter was listed for filing reply while the petitioner when the matter was listed for filing reply while the petitioner when the matter was listed for filing reply while the petitioner was abroad, the wif abroad, the wife abruptly filed reply. Learned Family C without abruptly filed reply. Learned Family Court, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner dismissed his affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner dismissed his affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner dismissed his affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner dismissed his application by marking presence of Kapil Dev Advocate who was not even application by marking presence of Kapil Dev Advocate who was not even application by marking presence of Kapil Dev Advocate who was not even application by marking presence of Kapil Dev Advocate who was not even present in the Court. Order dated 21.02.2026, of learned Family Court was present in the Court. Order dated 21.02.2026, of learned Fami present in the Court. Order dated 21.02.2026, of learned Fami illegal, perverse and violative of principal of natural justice. illegal, perverse and violative of principal of natural justice. illegal, perverse and violative of principal of natural justice.

3. o Learned counsel further submits that petitioner then filed two Learned counsel further submits that petitioner then filed tw separate applications on 16.03.2026 before learned Family Court separate applications on 16.03 , first .2026 before learned Family Court, first

2.2026 on the ground of violation of seeking recalling of order dated 21.02.2026 on the ground of violation of 2.2026 on the ground of violation of seeking recalling of order dated 21.0 principle of natural justice and the second objecting to the proceedings being principle of natural justice and the second objecting to the proceedings being principle of natural justice and the second objecting to the proceedings being principle of natural justice and the second objecting to the proceedings being conducted in disregard of mandatory directions in Rajnesh Vs. Neha, conducted in disregard of mandatory directions in conducted in disregard of mandatory directions in Rajnesh Vs. Neha, Learned counsel refers to the decisions of Hon’ble 2021) 2 SCC 324. Learned counsel refers to the decisions of Hon’ble Learned counsel refers to the decisions of Hon’ble (2021) 2 SCC 324 Supreme Court in ‘ reme Court in ‘Amar Nath and others vs. State of Haryana and Amar Nath and others vs. State of Haryana and Amar Nath and others vs. State of Haryana and , 1977(4) SCC 137, ‘Madhu Limaye vs. The State of Another’, 1977(4) SCC 137, ‘Madhu Limaye vs. The State of , 1977(4) SCC 137, ‘Madhu Limaye vs. The State of , 1977(4) SCC 137, ‘Madhu Limaye vs. The State of , 1977(4) SCC 551, ‘K.K. Patel and Another vs. State of Maharashtra’, 1977(4) SCC 551, ‘K.K. Patel and Another vs. State of , 1977(4) SCC 551, ‘K.K. Patel and Another vs. State of Maharashtra Gujrat and Another’, 2000(6) SCC 195 and in Gujrat and Another’ Rajendra Kumar Sitaram 2000(6) SCC 195 and in ‘Rajendra Kumar Sitaram , to submit that ande and others vs. Uttam and another’, 1999(3) SCC 134, to submit that ande and others vs. Uttam and another’, 1999(3) SCC 134 Pande and others vs. Uttam and another’, 1999(3) SCC 134 even though the orders under challenge were interlocutory, inherent powers even though the orders under challenge were interlocutory, inherent powers even though the orders under challenge were interlocutory, inherent powers even though the orders under challenge were interlocutory, inherent powers nterlocutory orders. It was urged that could be invoked for quashing the interlocutory orders. It was urged that nterlocutory orders. It was urged that could be invoked for quashing the i CRM-M-30310 30310-2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 3 vide order dated 13.04.2026, learned Family Court erroneously treated ide order dated 13.04.2026, learned Family Court erroneously treated learned Family Court erroneously treated as a review petition. The court failed to petitioner’s application for recall as a review petition. The court failed to as a review petition. The court failed to petitioner’s application for recall consider the admissions made by respondent No.1 consider the in her reply made by respondent No.1-wife in her reply conceding existence of existence of undisclosed bank accounts neither directed undisclosed bank accounts, and neither directed production of relevant documents nor initiated production of relevant documents inquiry. Thus, impugned nor initiated any inquiry. Thus, impugned orders dated

21.02.2026 and 13.04.2026 be set aside and respondent No.1 be be set aside and respondent No.1 be statements directed to produce the entire details and last three years account statements directed to produce the entire details and last three years account directed to produce the entire details and last three years account of all her bank accounts, including ICICI Bank of all her bank , Royal Bank of Canada ncluding ICICI Bank, Royal Bank of Canada records of domestic Toronto Dominion Bank, CIBC along with details and records of domestic Toronto Dominion Bank, CIBC along with details and Toronto Dominion Bank, CIBC along with details and saving instruments. saving instruments.

4. Record shows that the petition under Section 125 Cr.P. petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by respondent No.-1 wife on 03.03.2025 filed by respondent No. husband put in 03.03.2025. Petitioner-husband put in 3, under Section 93 of BNSS appearance and moved application Annexure P-3, under Section 93 of BNSS appearance and moved application Annexure P appearance and moved application Annexure P complete financial affidavit and seeking seeking direction to the wife for complete financial affidavit and seeking complete financial affidavit and seeking seeking direction to the wife for leave to serve interrogatories under Section 10 of Family Court Act read leave to serve interrogatories under Section 10 of Family Court Act read leave to serve interrogatories under Section 10 of Family Court Act read leave to serve interrogatories under Section 10 of Family Court Act read . The case fixed before learned Family Court at with Order XI Rule 1 of CPC. The case fixed before learned Family Court at . The case fixed before learned Family Court at with Order XI Rule 1 Sonipat on 21.02.2026, when reply to the application was filed. Sonipat on 21.02.2026 rimary plea ly to the application was filed. Primary plea of the petitioner-husband was that the respondent of the petitioner wife had made false husband was that the respondent-wife had made false ts and had also failed declaration in her affidavit regarding her bank accounts and had also failed declaration in her affidavit regarding her bank accoun declaration in her affidavit regarding her bank accoun to disclose the the litigation in Canada. He, thus a set sought permission to serve a set wife filed reply saying that she was only of interrogatories. The respondent-wife filed reply saying that she was only wife filed reply saying that she was only of interrogatories. The respondent accounts were maintaining one account with Central Bank of India and other accounts were maintaining one account with Central Bank of India and other maintaining one account with Central Bank of India and other husband; ICICI Bank account was already maintained by the petitioner-husband; ICICI Bank account was already husband; ICICI Bank account was already maintained by the petitioner closed by her before marriage and all other documents were in possession of closed by her before marriage and all other documents were in possession of closed by her before marriage and all other documents were in possession of closed by her before marriage and all other documents were in possession of the petitioner-husband. the petitioner CRM-M-30310 30310-2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 4

5. was passed in the presence of the Order dated 21.02.2026 was passed in the presence of the was passed in the presence of the counsel for the petitioner r the petitioner-husband Sh. Kapil Dev, Advocate . Presence of husband Sh. Kapil Dev, Advocate. Presence of parents of the petitioner is also marked in the order. After hearing and going parents of the petitioner is also marked in the order. After hearing and going parents of the petitioner is also marked in the order. After hearing and going parents of the petitioner is also marked in the order. After hearing and going through the record, learned Family court held that detailed reply had been through the record, learned Family court held that detailed reply had been through the record, learned Family court held that detailed reply had been through the record, learned Family court held that detailed reply had been filed by the respondent-wife, yet granted liberty filed by the respondent husband to liberty to the petitioner-husband to place any specific interrogatories/set of interrogatories place any specific interrogatories/set of , if he so desired and interrogatories, if he so desired and the application was disposed of . the application was disposed of .

6. husband that The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner/husband that The argument of learned counsel for the the order was violative of princip of natural justice is belied by the order was violative of principles of natural justice is belied by the of natural justice is belied by the which carries presumption of correctness. Since presence of judicial record which carries presumption of correctness. Since presence of which carries presumption of correctness. Since presence of judicial record learned counsel husband, who had never withdrawn his counsel for the petitioner/husband, who had never withdrawn his husband, who had never withdrawn his Vakalatnama is marked in the order, this Court cannot record a finding Vakalatnama is marked in the order, this Court cannot record a find Vakalatnama is marked in the order, this Court cannot record a find against judicial record. against judicial record.

7. Even otherwise, order dated 21.02.2026 which granted liberty Even otherwise, order dated 21.02.2026 which granted liberty Even otherwise, order dated 21.02.2026 which granted liberty the petitioner/ husband petitioner/husband to place to place specific specific /set of interrogatory/set of , cannot be taken adverse to the husband. Instead of availing interrogatories, cannot be taken adverse to the husband. Instead of availing , cannot be taken adverse to the husband. Instead of availing interrogatories the remedy of servi and seeking production of relevant remedy of serving interrogatories and seeking production of relevant and seeking production of relevant documents from the opposite party in terms of the procedure provided in documents from the opposite party in terms of the procedure provided in documents from the opposite party in terms of the procedure provided in documents from the opposite party in terms of the procedure provided in moved an application for recalling order dated Order XI, 1908, he moved an application for recalling order dated moved an application for recalling order dated Order XI, 1908, 21.02.2026, which was rightly declined as opportunity of hearing had 21.02.2026, which was rightly declined as opportunity of hearing 21.02.2026, which was rightly declined as opportunity of hearing 5 raising already been provided. The second application Annexuure P-5 raising already been provided. The second application Annexuure P already been provided. The second application Annexuure P to the proceedings being conducted in disregard of Hon’ble Apex objections to the proceedings being conducted in disregard of Hon’ble Apex to the proceedings being conducted in disregard of Hon’ble Apex to the proceedings being conducted in disregard of Hon’ble Apex was also rightly declined noticing the Court directions in Rajnesh Vs. Neha, was also rightly declined noticing the was also rightly declined noticing the Court directions in husband who was repeatedly moving applications conduct of the petitioner/husband who was repeatedly moving applications husband who was repeatedly moving applications conduct of the 227, 229, one after the other and even sought lodging of FIR under Sections 227, 229, one after the other and even sought lodging of FIR under Sections one after the other and even sought lodging of FIR under Sections CRM-M-30310 30310-2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 5 has observed 236 and 246 of BNS against the wife. Learned Family Court has observed 236 and 246 of BNS against the wife. Learned Family Court 236 and 246 of BNS against the wife. Learned Family Court that summary summary proceedings under Section 144 BNSS could not be d ismissed proceedings under Section 144 BNSS could not be dismissed in limine as desired by the husband and the husband was at liberty to as desired by the husband and the husband was at liberty to as desired by the husband and the husband was at liberty to as desired by the husband and the husband was at liberty to but relevant produce all documents which the wife concealed from the court, but relevant produce all documents which the wife concealed from the court produce all documents which the wife concealed from the court to the controversy. It has also been observed in the order dated 13.04.2026 to the controversy. It has also been observed in the order dated 13.04.2026 to the controversy. It has also been observed in the order dated 13.04.2026 to the controversy. It has also been observed in the order dated 13.04.2026 interrogatories, if so advised”. that “the husband has right to serve interrogatories, if so advised”. that “the husband has rig

8. Prayer of Prayer of Prayer of the husband the husband the husband to serve to serve to serve interrogatories/set of interrogatories/set of interrogatories/set of interrogatories in terms of directions of Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. interrogatories in terms of directions of Hon’ble Apex Court in interrogatories in terms of directions of Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 2021) 2 SCC 324, has been granted yet has been granted yet, the petitioner has the liberty granted by the court. approached this Court instead of availing the liberty granted by the court. the liberty granted by the court. approached t petition would be maintainable There can be no denying that a quashing petition would be maintainable petition would be maintainable There can be no denying that a quashing even though an order may be interlocutory even though owever, a clear case for order may be interlocutory, however, a clear case for interference has to be made out. The orders under ch interference allenge do not suffer The orders under challenge do not suffer from the vice of perversity, warranting interference in the exercise of from the vice of perversity, warranting interference in the exercise of from the vice of perversity, warranting interference in the exercise of from the vice of perversity, warranting interference in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. inherent jurisdiction.

10. Dismissed. It is however made clear that the petitioner would still be free to It is however made clear that the petitioner would still be free to It is however made clear that the petitioner would still be free to avail the liberty granted to him by learned Family Court, Sonipat vide order avail the liberty granted to him by learned Family Court, Sonipat vide order avail the liberty granted to him by learned Family Court, Sonipat vide order avail the liberty granted to him by learned Family Court, Sonipat vide order dated 21.02.2026. dated 21.02.2026.

11. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE

26.05.2026 Kapil Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Whether Reportable : Yes/No Yes/No