Gurpreet Singh v. Rajpal Singh Ahuja is pending since the year
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89490 Court No. - 9 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9934 of 2024 Petitioner :- Rajpal Singh Ahuja Respondent :- Gurpreet Kaur Counsel for Petitioner :- In Person Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Pratap Singh Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard petitioner Rajpal Singh Ahuja, in person, and Sri Ashish Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Petitioner was married to the respondent on 14.11.2009 in a Gurudwara at New Delhi. From the aforesaid wedlock a son Paramvir was born in New Delhi on 8.11.2010. It appears that some matrimonial dispute has arisen between the parties, which led to filing of Matrimonial Petition No. 1488 of 2017 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj under Section 9 of the Restitution of Conjugal Rights and also under Section 26 for custody of minor child. It appears that petitioner had not filed his written statement in the proceedings under Section 9 of the Restitution of Conjugal Rights. The order granting ad interim maintenance was passed under Section 125 CrPC, which was put to challenge by the petitioner before this Court in Matters Under Article 227 No. 2505 of 2021. The said writ petition was dismissed by coordinate Bench of this Court on 6.5.2022 upholding the order passed by the family court. The coordinate Bench held as under; "[20] Under the circumstances, this Court is not at all impressed and the present petition is devoid of merit and accordingly DISSMISSED. [21] From the record, it is clear that the Maintenance Case No.360 of 2018, Gurpreet Singh Vs. Rajpal Singh Ahuja is pending since the year 2018 and four years have been lapsed so far. [22] The court concerned is hereby directed to hold a day to day trial starting from 12.09.2022 and conclude the same latest by 31.03.2023 without granting any unwarranted adjournments to either of the parties on merits after hearing both the parties strictly in accordance with law by the ratio laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Rajneesh Vs. Neha in Criminal Appeal No.730 of 2020 decided on 04.11.2020. [23] This Court does not know as to whether any order for interim maintenance has been granted by the court concerned or not? It is totally at the discretion of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad to decide this issue of interim maintenance keeping in view that the matter is pending since the year 2018 and the wife-Gurpreet Kaur is not in a position to maintain herself." 3. Petitioner has also filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC questioning the maintainability of proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The said application was rejected and the order passed therein was subjected in Matters Under Article 227 No. 2532 of 2021 and this Court on 6.5.2021 dismissed the writ petition and passed the following order; "Plaintiff respondent has instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights alongwith which an application for maintenance and for custody has also been filed. The petitioner in the present proceeding is the husband who is arrayed as defendant in the suit. It appears that instead of filing a written statement and denying the allegation made in the proceedings instituted by the wife an objection under Order 7 Rule 11 appears to have been filed on various factual grounds including the ground that the plaintiff is not the legally wedded wife and is actually the wife of someone else. The Family Court vide order dated 10.5.2019 has rejected application of the husband on the ground that factual inquiry which would be required for determining the questions raised by the petitioner can be undertaken only by filing his written statement and cannot be examined under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. A review petition thereafter has also been filed which has been rejected. Subsequent order allowing visitation rights have also been challenged in the present proceedings under Article 227. I have heard the petitioner in person and perused the material placed on records. Upon being pointed out that the petitioner has a remedy of filing appeal against the main order in terms of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the petitioner in person comes up with the prayer to withdraw this petition with liberty to file an appeal before the appropriate forum. Prayer in that regard is allowed. This petition, accordingly, is consigned to records with the liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue his remedy in accordance with law against the order impugned. Certified copy of the orders annexed with this petition shall be returned by the Registry to the petitioner while retaining its photocopy on record." 4. It appears that petitioner has been moving successive applications before the Principal Judge, Family Court on one pretext or the other. The Principal Judge, Family Court on 15.7.2024 had framed the following issues; "1. क्यया वयाददिननी दवपकनी ककी दवधधिततः दववयादहित पत्ननी हिह? 2. क्यया दवपकनी दयारया दबिनया दकसनी ययदሹኌ ययሹኌ ्ቚदतहिहेतय कहे ययादचिननी कहे सयाहिचियर सहे स्वययं कक ्ቚत्ययाहृत कर धलियया गयया हिह? 3. क्यया वयाददिननी अपቈኚय मयास्टर परमवनीर धसयंहि ककी नहसदगरक मयातया हिह? यददि हियााሺ तक क्यया वहि स्वययं और दवपकनी कहे अदभिकधथित पय्ቔ ककी अदभिरकया ्ቚया् करनहे ककी हिकदियार हिह? 4. क्यया वयाददिननी ककई अनयतकष ्ቚया् करनहे ककी हिकदियार हिह? यददि हियााሺ तक क्यया?" 5. Thereafter, petitioner had moved a review application on 1.8.2024 for amendment in the issued framed and also sought for framing of ancillary and other issues. The said application has been rejected by the order impugned dated 2.8.2024. 6. Petitioner, who has appeared in person, submits that though he has not filed written statement but he has filed number of applications demanding that he may be permitted to place the evidence before the family court, which the court had denied. According to him, the court below was not correct in proceeding under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC and framing the issues on 15.7.2024. He next contended that Order XIV Rule 3 CPC mandates that the issues can be framed from the allegations made on oath by the parties, or by any persons present on their behalf, or made by the pleaders of such parties. He further submits that Rule 3 (c) of Order XIV provides that the issues can be framed from the contents of documents produced by either party. According to him the court below had denied the opportunity of hearing on framing of the issues. 7. Sri Ahuja further relied upon the provisions of Section 10 (3) of the Family Court Act and submits that procedures of CPC are not strictly applicable in the family court matters and the court can grant relaxation and should proceed for settlement between the parties and should have avoided the dispute by framing of the issues and should have been proceeded on the application moved by petitioner. 8. Sri Ashish Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed in the year 2017 and petitioner has been dragging on the matter for last seven years. He had twice approached this Court by filing writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the orders passed in that writ petition have not been brought
Decision
on record through the writ petition. The application moved under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has already been rejected and the court below had granted the liberty to file an appeal, which has not been filed till date. 9. I have heard the petitioner, who appeared in person and learned counsel for respondent and perused the material on record. The Order XIV CPC mandates for the settlement of issues and determination of a suit on issues of law or on agreed issues. Rule 1 Order XIV provides that issues are formed when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. It is from the pleadings of the parties that the issues are framed either it is an issue of fact or issue of law. 10. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that petitioner had not filed his written statement for last seven years and has been moving different applications dragging on the matter. The contention of petitioner is wholly misplaced relying on the provisions of Rule 3 (a) and (c) to the extent that without filing his written statement the issues need to be framed and addressed by the court below. It is from the pleadings of the parties that the material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other party. It is only on the basis of the pleadings that the court arrives in framing of the issues. Rule 3 (a) specifically provides that the allegations made on oath by the parties, or by any persons present on their behalf, or made by the pleaders of such parties, the court may frame such issues. It is clearly evident that it is only when there is material in writing before the court that the court proceeds to frame the issues. Similarly, Rule 3 (c) provides that the contents of documents produced by either party. The document can only be considered when there is pleadings to that effect. The document simplicitor cannot be taken into record and issues are framed, it is when specific pleadings are there which is supported by contents of the document that the court proceeds to frame the issue. 11. The argument advanced by Sri Ahuja is totally misplaced. However, coming to the question of Section 10 (3) of the Family Court Act, the argument advanced by him is totally against the provisions of Order XIV as he has relied upon Rule 3 of Order XIV and when the Court was going to dismiss his writ petition, he submitted that settlement may be arrived between the parties and the Court strictly cannot follow the procedure prescribed under Order XIV. Sri Ahuja cannot blow hot and cold at the same time, either he may appear before the court below and file written statement and follow the procedure envisaged under Order XIV or seek settlement of the matter before the court below. 12. Once he is specifically denying the factum of marriage with the plaintiff/respondent on the ground that she is impersonating as wife of petitioner being twins sister and wife of Avneet Mehta. These are the issues of fact which needs to be specifically pleaded by a party in his written statement and it cannot be decided on the basis of any application moved before the family court. Once such fact is pleaded before the court the issues are framed, then only the evidence can be led so as to substantiate this fact. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the order passed by the court below framing the issues on 15.7.2024 and, thereafter, rejecting the application for review moved by petitioner, needs no interference by this Court. 14. Writ petition fails and stands dismissed. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 Shekhar Digitally signed by :- SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad