w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Sushil Kumar Singh v/s Dr. Shruti Singh


Company & Directors' Information:- SHRUTI LTD [Active] CIN = U26941WB1963PLC025747

Company & Directors' Information:- A. KUMAR AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19201UP1995PTC018833

Company & Directors' Information:- S KUMAR & CO PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U51909WB1946PTC014540

Company & Directors' Information:- S KUMAR AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U45203DL1964PTC117149

Company & Directors' Information:- KUMAR (INDIA) PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1986PTC041038

Company & Directors' Information:- P KUMAR & CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27105WB1998PTC087242

Company & Directors' Information:- M KUMAR AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL1982PTC014823

Company & Directors' Information:- S. SINGH AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51100MP2010PTC025020

Company & Directors' Information:- S. SINGH AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100MP2010PTC025020

Company & Directors' Information:- SINGH AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U36101PB1982PTC005152

    Crl.Rev. P. Nos. 596 of 2016, 107 of 2017 & Crl.M.A. Nos. 13783-13784 of 2016, 1831 of 2017

    Decided On, 23 July 2018

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

    For the Petitioner: D.P. Kaushik, Advocate. For the Respondent: K.K. Sharma, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Oral:

CRL.REV. P.596/2016 & CRL.M.A.13783-13784/2016

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 15.01.2016, whereby the Trial Court has proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner and listed the case for evidence of the respondent (petitioner before the trial court).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not seeking to impugn the part of the order which proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner. He is impugning the part of the order which lists the petition for respondent’s evidence.

3. The order dated 15.01.2016 reads as follows:

'Notice issued to the respondent on PF has come back unserved with the report that premises was found locked.

Notice issued to the respondent on registered letter come back with the report of refusal.

Petitioner is declared to have served and is proceeded against ex-parte.

Now, to come up for ex-parte petitioner’s evidence on 16.03.2016.'

4. By the said order the Trial Court has noticed that the petitioner has refused to accept the notice sent by the court and accordingly proceeded ex-parte. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not been given an opportunity to show his bona fide and the Trial Court has fixed date for leading evidence of the petitioner (i.e. respondent herein). This is the part of the order by which the petitioner is aggrieved.

5. The ground raised by the petitioner is that: when on the plain reading of the pleadings, no case is made out; the court should not have placed the matter for evidence. It is further contended that when the Trial Court had more than enough material before it to infer that the complainant had failed to make out a case for maintenance against the petitioner (her husband); it was not open to the Trial Court to post the matter for evidence. It is submitted that maintainability of a proceeding has to be decided at the outset before taking evidence.

6. As noticed above, the petitioner is not impugning the part of the order whereby he has been proceed ex-parte but only that part whereby the case has been fixed for respondents evidence. No revision would lie against the order merely fixing the case for evidence. The Trial Court has not passed any order deciding or adjudicating on the rights of the parties, after proceeding ex-parte, the Trial Court has issued a procedural direction fixing the date for respondent’s evidence (i.e. petitioner before the Trial Court). The Trial Court has not expressed any view on the rights and contentions of the parties.

7. The proceedings emanate out of an application filed by the respondent under section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from her husband (petitioner herein). No error has been committed by the Trial Court in fixing the case for evidence of the petitioner (respondent herein).

8. The petitioner who chooses to refuse to accept the summons issued by the court and fails to file his defence or even appear before the trial court to object to the maintainability cannot be permitted to contend that the court should have decided on the maintainability of the petition at the outset before the fixing the case for evidence. In the absence of a party appearing and objecting to the maintainability of the petition, the trial court is not to assume that the averments in the petition are false.

9. The stage for the Trial Court to consider the pleadings or rights and contentions of the parties has not yet arisen; the Trial Court would do so after the respondent (i.e. petitioner before the Trial Court) leads evidence.

10. I find no merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed.

CRL.REV. P.107/2017 & CRL.M.A.1831/2017

1. The Petitioner in this petition is aggrieved by the order dated 15.09.2016 whereby the application of the petitioner seeking adjournment of the proceedings sine die have been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because of petitioner having been proceeded ex-parte, he is precluded from cross-examining the witnesses or raising an objection as to the maintainability of the proceedings or submitting legal propositions objecting to grant of maintenance before the Trial Court.

3. It is settled position of law that a party that has been proceeded ex-parte can, without seeking setting aside of ex-parte order, can join the proceedings at any stage. The only drawback that such a party would suffer from, is that such a party cannot seek reopening of proceedings that have already taken place and has to proceed from that stage.

4. In the present case, since the petitioner has not sought setting aside of ex-parte order, he cannot seek reopening of the proceedings that have taken place prior to his joining the same and has to proceed from the date he joins. If any witness is produced by the respondent, after he joins, the petitioner is not precluded from cross-examining the said witness, though the right of cross-examination in such a case would be limited to disapproving the case of the respondent. Since petitioner has chosen not to file any defence, petitioner woul

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

d be precluded from putting his defence to the witness. 5. It is also settled position of law that legal objections to a petition can be taken even at the final stage. Accordingly, if any legal objection is raised by the petitioner objecting to the maintainability of the proceedings, it is open to the Trial Court to consider the same in accordance with law. 6. In my view no error is committed by the trial court in refusing to adjourn the matter sine-die. 7. I find no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed with the above observations.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

26-05-2020 Rajendra Kumar & Others Versus Raj Kumar High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
26-05-2020 Guru Nanak Industries, Faridabad & Another Versus Amar Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. Supreme Court of India
26-05-2020 Ombir Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Another Supreme Court of India
26-05-2020 Suneet Kumar Versus Krishna Kumar Agarwal High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
23-05-2020 Pradeep Kumar Bhatia Versus Paramjit Kaur Paintal High Court of Delhi
22-05-2020 Santosh Kumar Yadav Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
21-05-2020 Abhay Singh Versus Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P) Limited, Represented by its Managing Director & Others High Court of Karnataka
21-05-2020 Binay Kumar Mishra Versus The Director (R.P. Cell), Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board & Others High Court of Delhi
21-05-2020 Dr. Mulayam Singh Yadav Versus State of MP & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
20-05-2020 The Bank of New York Mellon, Through its attorney Navneet Singh Versus Indowind Energy Limited, Nungambakkam, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-05-2020 Sunil Kumar Aledia Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
20-05-2020 Mohit Kumar & Another Versus Ashok Kumar Tiwari & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
20-05-2020 M/s. Prithvi Singh Versus Asst. Commissioner (South), Govt of NCT of Delhi High Court of Delhi
20-05-2020 Harpal Singh Versus State of Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
19-05-2020 Baglekar Akash Kumar Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Chief Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
19-05-2020 Maha Singh Versus State of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Chhattisgarh
19-05-2020 Ravindra Kumar Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
19-05-2020 Dipu Singh @ Hulo Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-05-2020 Most. Sangeeta Singh Versus Bindhyachal Singh High Court of Judicature at Patna
18-05-2020 Dheeraj Kumar & Another Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
15-05-2020 Malvinder Mohan Singh Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
14-05-2020 Manish Kumar Yadav & Another Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
13-05-2020 Swapan Kumar Saha Versus Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-05-2020 Shiv Prasad Singh Versus Nageshwar Kumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-05-2020 Kumar Bimal Prasad Singh & Others Versus Hare Ram Singh & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-05-2020 Mohomed Saleem Versus R. Senthil Kumar High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-05-2020 Anil Kumar @ Anil Versus State by Kodigehalli Police Station, Rep. by its Station House Officer High Court of Karnataka
13-05-2020 Jagmail Singh & Another Versus Karamjit Singh & Others Supreme Court of India
12-05-2020 Jodhan Singh & Another Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-05-2020 Pawan Kumar & Others Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
11-05-2020 M. Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by the State Police Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
09-05-2020 Gauri Shankar Versus Rakesh Kumar & Others High Court of Delhi
08-05-2020 State (Through) Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Kalyan Singh (Former CM of Up) & Others Supreme Court of India
08-05-2020 Virendra Kumar Versus Vijay Kumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
07-05-2020 Vijay Kumar Agrahari Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
06-05-2020 The State (NCT of Delhi) Versus Sanjeev Kumar Chawla High Court of Delhi
06-05-2020 Punjab National Bank & Others Versus Atmanand Singh & Others Supreme Court of India
06-05-2020 Sunder Kumar & Others Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
06-05-2020 Triloki Nath Singh Versus Anirudh Singh(D) Thr. Lrs & Others Supreme Court of India
06-05-2020 Sarmukh Singh & Others Versus Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
05-05-2020 Mahendra Singh Versus Commissioner of Police & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-05-2020 Jitender Kumar @ Rajan Versus Kamlesh High Court of Delhi
01-05-2020 Manish Kumar Mishra Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
30-04-2020 Sardar Manjieeth Singh Jagan Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Mahendra Singh Versus Commissioner of Police & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Dr. Somu Singh & Others Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
30-04-2020 Romesh Kumar Bajaj Versus Delhi Development Authority High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 For the Petitioner: Suo Moto, Deba Siddiqui, Swetashwa Agarwal, Advocates. For the Respondent: G.A., Manish Singh, Rajrshi Gupta, Advocates. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
29-04-2020 Col Ramneesh Pal Singh Versus Sugandhi Aggarwal High Court of Delhi
28-04-2020 Praveen Kumar @ Prashant Versus State of GNCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
28-04-2020 Praveen Kumar @ Prashant Versus State & Others High Court of Delhi
27-04-2020 Sunder Kumar & Others Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
24-04-2020 Arvind Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
24-04-2020 Sahil Kumar Versus State of Punjab & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
24-04-2020 Naresh Kumar Versus Director of Education & Another High Court of Delhi
22-04-2020 Devender Kumar Versus State of Haryana & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
22-04-2020 Hira Singh & Another Versus Union of India & Another Supreme Court of India
22-04-2020 Ram Subhag Singh & Others Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others High Court of Jharkhand
21-04-2020 State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Chikitsa Shiksha Evam Parshikshan, Government of U.P., Lucknow & Others Versus Dr. Raj Kamal Singh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
21-04-2020 Mahadeo Construction Co. at Chhatarpur, Palamau Through its partner Anil Kumar Singh Versus The Union of India through the Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Ranchi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
21-04-2020 For the Appellants: Amit Saxena (Senior Advocate) assisted by Abhishek Srivastava, Advocates. For the Respondent: Ajit Kumar, Punit Khare, Advocates. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
20-04-2020 Pradip Kumar Maji Versus Coal India Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-04-2020 Aman Kumar Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
20-04-2020 Aman Kumar Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
17-04-2020 Dr. Thingujam Achouba Singh & Others Versus Dr. H. Nabachandra Singh & Others Supreme Court of India
17-04-2020 Diljit Singh Bindra Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India Supreme Court of India
16-04-2020 Krishnapal Singh Versus Managing Director U.P.S.R.T.C. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
15-04-2020 Harnam Singh Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
15-04-2020 Bijender Singh Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
09-04-2020 Manoj Kumar Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
09-04-2020 T. Ganesh Kumar Versus Union of India Represented by Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-04-2020 Ramjit Singh Kardam & Others Versus Sanjeev Kumar & Others Supreme Court of India
08-04-2020 India Awake for Transparency, Rep. by its Director, Rajender Kumar Versus The Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-04-2020 Shahid Bhagat Singh Cooperative Housing Society Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-04-2020 Dr. Shivender Mohan Singh (In J.C.) Versus State of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
03-04-2020 Gaurav Kumar Bansal Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
20-03-2020 Chetan Singh Versus R.C. Chadda High Court of Delhi
20-03-2020 Suchitra Kumar Singha Roy Versus Arpita Singha Roy High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-03-2020 State Versus Krishan Kumar High Court of Delhi
20-03-2020 Pawan Kumar Gupta Versus State of NCT of Delhi Supreme Court of India
19-03-2020 Ram Chandra Prasad Singh Versus Sharad Yadav Supreme Court of India
19-03-2020 Akshay Kumar Singh Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
19-03-2020 Pawan Kumar Gupta Versus State of N.C.T. of Delhi Supreme Court of India
19-03-2020 Pawan Kumar Gupta & Others Versus State High Court of Delhi
19-03-2020 Gurcharan Singh & Others Versus Angrez Kaur & Another Supreme Court of India
19-03-2020 R. Raghavan, Partner of Dinamalar Group, Dinamalar (RF) New Standard Press Annex, Trichy & Others Versus Educomp Solutions Ltd, Through its Senior Manager Nithish Kumar & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
19-03-2020 Gajender Singh Versus The State (GNCT of Delhi) & Another High Court of Delhi
18-03-2020 Raj Kumar Versus Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan Near Ina Market New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Surendra Kumar Versus Phulwanti Devi High Court of Rajasthan
18-03-2020 Ranvijay Singh @ Dharaka Singh Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
18-03-2020 State of M.P. & Others Versus Rajendra Kumar Sharma High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
18-03-2020 The Branch Manager, M/s. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. & Others Versus Bikram Kumar Jaiswal West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
18-03-2020 Mukesh Hyundai Versus Ankur Kumar Roy National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Amar Kumar Saraswat Versus M/s. Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Dr. Ajay Kumar Versus Indu Bala Mishra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Praveen Kumar Versus M/s. RPS Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Bhagwan Singh Versus State of Uttarakhand Supreme Court of India
17-03-2020 Meghna Singh (Through: Her Natural Guardian) Avita D Lal Versus Central Board of Secondary Education & Another High Court of Delhi
17-03-2020 Subodh Kumar & Others Versus Commissioner of Police & Others Supreme Court of India
16-03-2020 Kuldeep Kumar & Others Versus Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box