Akkshadha Srivastav
Published on: 13 August 2022 at 19:52 IST
Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the lower court’s decision dismissing the execution petition of the decree-holder, hereby the wife, as unsatisfied, ex post the fact that she could not bring on record the properties owned by the judgement-debtor, her former husband.
The parties to the lis were married on 16.01.2011 but as the marriage did not work out for them, in the vide judgement, dated 20.05.2014 (Annexure P-1), the Additional District Judge, Panchkula allowed the divorce petition filed by Megha Rana under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Court dissolved the marriage of the parties together with directing the husband to pay permanent alimony and maintenance of a total of Rs. 60 lakhs to the wife.
The execution petition was sent to the Civil Court at Balachaur, District SBS Nagar for attachment of the properties of the judgement-debtor.
Owing to the aforementioned, third-party objections were later filed by Inderjit Singh contending that the properties sought to be attached were owned by him and not by the husband resulting in the court dismissing the execution petition as unsatisfactory.
At the civil petition revision, the court descried that the husband lives in the United Kingdom and from the record available, has no property in his name in India.
A bench comprising of Justice Alka Sarin said:
‘The Court can sympathize with the decree-holder/wife for the delay but it finds no illegality or error in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Civil Court at Balachaur or the Family Court, Panchkula.’
As for its ruling the Court, dismissed the civil revision petition but allowed the wife to approach the Court with a fresh execution petition once the relevant details were available to her.