LAWS(P&H)-1984-7-58

NARGIS Vs. MAJOR RANBIR SINGH SANGHA

Decided On July 27, 1984
NARGIS Appellant
V/S
Major Ranbir Singh Sangha Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS contempt petition has a background; not a happy one, but rather a multi-headed cantakerous dispute between husband and wife.

(2.) THE broad details of that dispute are these. Smt. Nargis, the petitioner stood married to Major Ranbir Singh Sangha respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is the latter's father. The marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 1 was on the rocks. They were an issueless couple. In August 1980, she lodged a First Information Report with the police about alleged misappropriation of her dowry articles by her husband and ]lis parents They gloved Criminal Misc. No. 5309-M of 1980 in this Court, During the course of bearing of that petition, peace moves were initiated amongst the parties. The matter was adjourned from time to tin c when finally on Jure 1, 1982, the husband and the wife made a joint statement before this Court. conveying that their marriage could not work and they had decided to separate from each other amicably. Their joint statement was recorded em that day, in which they laid out clearly their terms of settlement. Anticipating divorce, they mutually agreed that the maintenance/alimony to the wife mould be in the following terms:-

(3.) THE present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner primarily on two grounds : (1) that the husband while making statements oil Jure 1, 1992, and August 2, 1982, had deliberately concealed from this Court that his Short Service Commission in the Army was expiring on August 21, 1982, from which date he was to be relieved and, in fact, lie was so relieved on that date and, (2) that she has not been paid any maintenance/alimony, as agreed upon. It is on these facts that notice was issued to the husband-respondent and his father. The latter had given only his blessings to the arrangement between the parties towards the settlement. At this jucture, I would straight away thus hold that no contempt whatsoever has been made out against respondent No. 2. His reference hereafter is m holly unnecessary.