IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5334 of 2010 Date of decision : August 24, 2010 Harpreet Kaur ....Petitioner versus Satpreet Singh Bammi ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. BBS Sobti, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Petitioner Harpreet Kaur has filed divorce petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act) against her husband Satpreet Singh Bammi respondent who is presently residing in New York. Respondent is being represented by his special attorney in the matrimonial court. The petitioner moved application Annexure P/2 dated 10.4.2010 requesting that the respondent be directed to appear in person for making effort for reconciliation between the parties in the first instance. The petitioner also moved application dated 2.12.2009, Annexure P/3 under section 24 of the Act claiming maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses. Grievance of the petitioner in the instant revision petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is that applications Annexure P/2 and P/3 have not been disposed of by the matrimonial court. Another grievance is that proceedings in the case should be held in camera Civil Revision No. 5334 of 2010 -2- as required by section 22 of the Act by not permitting the respondent's special attorney to appear on behalf of respondent as it infringes the privacy of the parties to the marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the petitioner has filed objections before the matrimonial court that special attorney should not be allowed to represent the respondent and the same also remain undecided. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Without entering into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, the instant revision petition is disposed of by directing the matrimonial court i.e. court of Mr. Manish Singhal, learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana where the divorce petition filed by the petitioner is pending, to dispose of in accordance with law, applications Annexures P/2 and P/3 and also objections dated 10.6.2010 (filed by the petitioner to respondent being represented by attorney) as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. ( L.N. Mittal ) August 24, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'