Civil Revision No. 7237 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7237 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision. 25.11.2011 Maninderjit Singh .... Petitioner Versus Anmol Kaur and Karanbir Singh ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.R.C. Setia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Ranjan, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. CM No.28095-CII of 2011 Application is allowed. The petitioner is exempted from filing certified copies of Annexures P-2 to P-5. CR No.7237 of 2011 Maninderjit Singh, judgment debtor has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 23.07.2011(Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, whereby his objections have been dismissed. Civil Revision No. 7237 of 2011 --2-- Maninderjit Singh, petitioner had been married with Parminderjit Kaur. The marriage between the two had been dissolved by way of a decree passed under the provisions of section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') dated 19.09.2005. Anmol Kaur and Karanbir Singh, minor children of Maninderjit Singh and Parminderjit Kaur, had brought a suit for recovery of Rs.1,80,000/- as arrears of maintenance for three years and had also prayed for an order of grant of Rs.2500/- per month towards their maintenance under the provisions of section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956. The said suit was decreed on 19.03.2009 by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar. Since the judgment debtor Maninderjit Singh, petitioner did not pay the dues of Anmol Kaur and Karanbir Singh under the said decree, they brought execution application. It is necessary to mention here that during the pendency of the suit, the next friend of the minor children was substituted. The suit was filed through Parminderjit Kaur, the mother of the minors, but vide order dated 4.4.2008, Mr. K.S. Baghiana was substituted in place of Parminderjit Kaur, who was the maternal grandfather of the minors. By way of the objection petition, the petitioner has claimed that Mr. K.S. Baghiana has wrongly obtained a decree as he was not guardian of the children and only Parminderjit Kaur, mother of the children was their guardian. He had also claimed that he was never served Civil Revision No. 7237 of 2011 --3-- in the suit and had no notice of the same. He has also claimed that Parminderjit Kaur was not competent to pass on the guardianship of the minors to Mr.K.S.Baghiana. Claiming that in December 2007, Parminderjit Kaur left India, the petitioner had prayed for dismissal of the execution application. The objections were replied by the minors through Mr.K.S. Baghiana. They have claimed that the decree has been rightly passed in their favour. It was also submitted that the judgment debtor was duly served in the suit and he had not only appeared in the court in the said suit, but had also filed written statement. The other averments of the objector were denied and the objection petition was prayed to be dismissed. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar has dismissed the objection petition vide order dated 23.07.2011 finding no merit in the points raised by the petitioner in the same. I have heard Shri R.C. Setia, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Vishal Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned Senior counsel has submitted that Parminderjit Kaur has re-married and has gone abroad. According to him, the petitioner is ready to take the children with him from the court and look after them. He has submitted that Shri K.S. Baghiana is not the guardian of the minors and he could not even be substituted for Parminderjit Kaur, the Civil Revision No. 7237 of 2011 --4-- mother of the children. He has referred me to the compromise between him and his wife, which led to the passing of a consent decree of divorce under the provisions of section 13-B of the Act dissolving their marriage. According to him, Parminderjit Kaur alone was the guardian of the minors and if she has re-married and gone abroad, then the petitioner is the guardian of the minors. According to him, Shri K.S. Baghiana cannot claim money under the decree from the petitioner on behalf of the minors. The terms of the compromise clearly show that the objection petition has no merit. The compromise deed on the file speaks as under in clause no.3:- “That it has been agreed upon between the parties since the minor children are residing under the care and protection of party of 1st part, Parminderjit Kaur. Therefore they will remain with her. In case Parminderjit Kaur performed her 2nd marriage after obtaining divorce from the party of 2nd part in that event too the custody of minor will remain with Parminderjit Kaur and party of 2nd part will not be responsible either for custody of minor. It has also been resolved between parties that all types of suits whatsoever may be, will be withdrawn or got decided mutually by parties so that in future there may not be any such litigation in between the parties.” Civil Revision No. 7237 of 2011 --5-- Under this term of the settlement between the parties, which is said to have been arrived at with the intervention of the respectable persons and relatives of the parents, parties agreed that the minor children will remain with Paraminderjit Kaur. Even in the event of second marriage of Parminderjit Kaur, it was agreed that the minors would still remain in her custody and Maninderjit Singh would not be responsible for custody of the minors. By way of this compromise, the petitioner had completely washed off his hands from the custody of the minors. If she has left India after re-marriage, as is claimed by the petitioner, the custody of the children is not to go to Maninderjit Singh as per the terms of the settlement. In that event, Mr. K.S. Baghiana, maternal grandfather of the children would look after them. If the petitioner thinks that the future of the children is not secure with Mr. K.S. Baghiana, he can file appropriate proceedings for custody of the minor children. Till the competent court makes an order in this regard, the minors are entitled to the amount under the decree. If the children are not given the amount of maintenance due to them under the decree, they would starve. The petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands. He has made false averment claiming that he was not served in the suit. A copy of the judgment passed in the suit of Anmol Kaur and Karanbir Singh is on the file, which clearly mentions that the defendant appeared on receipt of notice of the suit through counsel and had filed written statement. Civil Revision No. 7237 of 2011 --6-- In these circumstances, I find no perversity in the impugned order passed by learned trial court. The revision petition consequently appears to have no merit and is dismissed. 25.11.2011 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE