IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 23.09.2010 C.R.No.6055 of 2010 (O&M) Gurpreet Singh ...Petitioner Versus Paramjit Kaur @ Kamalpreet Kaur ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate, for the caveator/respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 31.08.2010, whereby an application filed by the petitioner to call upon the respondent for the purpose of her cross- examination, was declined. The petitioner has sought dissolution of marriage by filing a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). The respondent-wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act for grant of ad interim maintenance supported by an affidavit. It is averred therein that she requires ` 10,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and ` 15,000/- as litigation expenses. The petitioner is said to be a property dealer having 5 acres of land and earning ` 40,000/- per month. In reply to the said application, the petitioner denied all the averments made by the respondent-wife and also the fact that he is earning more than ` 40,000/- per month. However, the petitioner has further averred that the respondent-wife is insane and mentally upset and not in senses of a normal human being. She is even not in senses to know the differences between right and wrong. C.R.No.6055 of 2010 (O&M) The petitioner subsequently moved an application under Order 19 Rule 2 of the CPC to call upon the respondent to appear as a witness. The relevant averments to seek the presence of respondent-wife for the purpose of her cross-examination are as under: “3. That the applicant has moved the divorce petition being a petitioner. The said maintenance application has been moved in the said divorce petition by the respondent. A false affidavit has been submitted to this Hon’ble Court with this false application for ad interim maintenance. The applicant wants to cross-examine the said deponent i.e. the respondent through his counsel in the matter of petition under Section 24 HMA having his statutory rights and especially in the circumstances as referred above just for the decision and disposal in the matter of the said petition under Section 24 H.M.A.” The learned trial Court found that the petitioner has sought dissolution of marriage on the ground that the respondent is of incurable mental disorder. The Court further found that the application has been filed by the petitioner with ulterior motive and that the respondent is not required to step into the witness-box for the purpose of her cross-examination. From the averments made in the application, as reproduced above, it is a mere wish of the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent- wife. It is not pointed out that any part of the affidavit is vague or requires clarification by virtue of cross-examination. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 23.09.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2