Civil Revision No.7764 of 2011(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7764 of 2011(O & M) Date of Decision:22.12.2011 Munish Kakkar .....petitioner Versus Mrs.Nidhi Kakkar .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr.Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner **** RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J.(ORAL): At the very outset, it is very fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that against the order dated 10.02.2011 passed by this Court in FAO No.90-M of 2010 (Nidhi Kakkar versus Munish Kakkar), Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12350 of 2011 has already been filed by the petitioner, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is stated to be fixed for 16.01.2012. However, learned counsel,submits that the operative part of the order dated 10.02.2011 passed by this Court, to the extent that wife will continue to draw her maintenance at the rate already stipulated by this Court, till the parties live together or till an alternative formulation emerges by the parties or by order or decree of a Court, is totally beyond the scope of Section 24 of the Hindu Civil Revision No.7764 of 2011(O & M) 2 Marriage Act, 1955. Learned counsel further submitted that the order of the learned Executing Court, in Execution No.19 of 2011 (Ms.Nidhi Kakkar versus Munish Kakkar) is unsustainable in law. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his able assistance also gone through the record of the case. After having examined the record of the case, it is clear that the impugned order dated 05.11.2011 (P-8) passed by the learned Executing Court, is in consonance with the order dated 10.02.2011 (P-3) passed by this Court. Further, once the petitioner has already challenged the order dated 10.02.2011 passed by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is already seized of the matter, this Court is satisfied that the instant revision petition at the hands of the petitioner, is wholly misconceived. No other argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above, the present revision petition must fail. Accordingly, it is dismissed. (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 22.12.2011 neenu