Harneet Kaur vs Tajinder Pal Singh

Jaswant Singh, J.—Harneet Kaur-wife is in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution aggrieved against the order dated 17.4.2013 passed by the learned District Judge, Jalandhar whereby her request for preponement of date of hearing, for recording of statement at the second motion in the divorce petition u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce by mutual consent filed by the parties, has been declined. It is averred that the statement of both the husband and the wife in their petition for decree of divorce by mutual consent in the first motion was recorded on 5.1.2013 before the learned District Judge, Jalandhar and the case was adjourned to 5.9.2013 for recording of the statement of parties in the second motion.

In the meanwhile the petitioner wife has been selected for the post of General Manager with IBM at New York, USA and asked to join on 19.8.2013 (P1). Since the petitioner wife would not be able to attend the proceedings before the learned District Judge, Jalandhar on 5.9.2013, an application seeking preponement of date of recording of the statement was made, which was however, declined vide impugned order dated 17.4.2013.

Notice of the present revision petition was issued and the petitioner was given liberty to serve the respondent husband through his counsel before the learned trial Court. A report has been received that the said Advocate has received the summons with the observation requesting the summon to be directly sent to the husband Tejinder Pal Singh. Service upon respondent is thus deemed to be complete in view of the provisions of sub rule (1) of Rule 3 of Order 3, as amended by the Punjab and Haryana as also in view of the provisions of proviso added by the Court of "Punjab and Haryana" to sub rule (2) of Rule 14 of Order 41. None has caused appearance on behalf of the respondent/husband.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that although this Court in a case reported as Smt. Anshu Rani v. Rohit Vij, 2010 (2) RCR (Civil) 660 has categorically held that the personal presence of a party for recording of the statement at the second motion is not necessary provided the Attorney alongwith affidavit of the party concerned does the needful at that stage. He, however, prays for directing the trial court to prepone the date fixed for recording of the statement at the second stage in view of the statutory period of six months having already expired on 5.7.2013.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the prayer of the petitioner is accepted, the impugned order dated 17.4.2013 is set aside and the learned District Judge, Jalandhar is directed to prepone the date of hearing and fix the same on any date on or before 20.7.2013.

Allowed in the above terms. Dasti on payment of usual charges.