IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 3640 of 2008 Date of Decision: 21.8.2009 Pawan Kumar ....Petitioner. Versus Neena Rani ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gagandeep Garg, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the husband-petitioner has assailed the order dated 5.6.2008 passed by the trial court fixing Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and awarding Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses to the respondent-wife on an application filed by her under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short “the Act”). Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter-alia, submitted that the respondent-wife had earlier got registered FIR No. 303 dated 8.12.2007 under Sections 307, 323, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Jaitu, District Faridkot against the petitioner wherein he filed an application for bail. The said bail application came up for hearing before the same Presiding Officer on 13.12.2007, who has passed the order impugned herein, wherein, he had passed the CR No. 3640 of 2008 -2- following order:- “It has come to my notice that the complaint belongs to my home town and it is not desirable that I should decide this Bail application. Accordingly, it is ordered to be put up before the Ld. Sessions Judge, Faridkot today i.e. 13.12.2007 for necessary orders. Ahlmad is directed to send the file immediately.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view thereof, the Presiding Officer should not have decided the application filed under Section 24 of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and very fairly submitted that the order dated 5.6.2008 passed by the trial court be set aside and the matter be sent back to the trial court for deciding the same afresh by any other court of competent jurisdiction. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 5.6.2008 is set aside with a direction that the District Judge, Faridkot shall bring HMA Case No. 14 dated 17.3.2008, titled “Pawan Kumar v. Neena Rani” out of which present revision has arisen, on his board from the file of Shri A.K. Singla, Additional District Judge, Faridkot for its disposal in accordance with law by himself or assign the same to another court of competent jurisdiction except the court of Shri A.K. Singla. It is further directed that the application under consideration shall be decided within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. August 21, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE