TA No.311 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.311 of 2011 Date of decision : 21.12.2011 Rajni ...Applicant Versus Vinod Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Narinder Vadhera, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate, for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. Smt. Rajnit-applicant wife filed this application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transferring of case titled ‘Vinod Kumar Vs. Rajni’ filed by Vinod Kumar, the husband, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act from Dasuya to Batala. 2. Heard. 3. On 30.08.2011, this Court passed the following order:- “Present:- Mr. Narinder Vadhera, Advocate, for the applicant. TA No.311 of 2011 2 Mr. Sunil Agrniogri, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- Learned counsel for the respondent states that the petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, stands withdrawn vide order dated 28.8.2011. Learned counsel for the appellant states that on the next date of hearing the appellant shall also withdraw all the cases filed by her. The parties have resolved their differences in pursuance of the agreement between them. The respondent shall visit the house of his in-laws and shall bring his wife back before the next date of hearing. Post for final hearing on 13.9.2011.” 4. In pursuance of the order dated 30.08.2011, the applicant-wife withdrew the execution proceedings in the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. On 21.11.2011, learned counsel for the respondent-husband sought more time to comply with the order dated 30.8.2011. However, the respondent-husband has not complied with the undertaking given by him and he has not joined the applicant-wife. The conduct of the husband in misleading the Court is deprecated. 5. In view of the fact that the petition under Section 9 of the Act stands withdrawn, the present application has been rendered infructuous and the same is dismissed as such. 6. As the execution petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was withdrawn pursuant to the statement made by the respondent TA No.311 of 2011 3 before this Court, same being not honoured, the applicant is granted liability to revive the execution proceedings. 7. As the mischief played by the respondent is writ large, he is held liable to pay the cost of present petition to the applicant- wife, which is quantified to `25,000/-. The costs shall be paid by the respondent-husband within a period of one month from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. 21.12.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE