SARABJIT KAUR JOHAL Vs. GURMIT SINGH JOHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga, dated 15.09.2015, as also the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Moga, dated 26.02.2018, by which the application filed by them under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, has been dismissed.

(2.) The petition had been filed by two petitioners, i.e. petitioner no.1 Sarabjit Kaur Johal and her daughter, Tajinder Kaur Johal (petitioner no.2). However, as recorded in the order dated 07.03.2019, Mr. Kataria, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, had submitted that the suit in which the impugned orders have been passed, had been dismissed in default by the trial court, with only petitioner no.2, i.e. Tajinder Kaur Johal, having filed an application before that court seeking restoration of the suit. He had further stated on that date that the mother of petitioner no.2 no longer wanted to pursue the suit. That being so, obviously this petition qua the first petitioner, Sarabjit Kaur Johal, had been rendered infructuous, though it is not specifically observed to that effect in the said order. Consequently, it is formally stated now to the effect that the suit in which the order impugned in this petition has been passed, not being pursued by petitioner no.1, this petition has been rendered infructuous qua her and is disposed of as such (qua her).

(3.) As regards the remaining petitioner, i.e. Tajinder Kaur Johal, the impugned orders have been passed in a petition before the learned trial Court, filed under the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, with the petitioner seeking maintenance from the respondent, who is stated to be her father and the husband of her mother. Vide the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, the respondent was sought to be restrained from selling any property belonging to him, during the pendency of the petition. In the reply filed by the respondent herein to that petition, it was stated that the petitioners had concealed fundamental facts, including that a petition bearing no. F-14358 had been instituted by the present petitioners' mother, Sarabjit Kaur, against the respondent herein, in a court in British Columbia, Canada, with eventually a divorce granted to the parties to that petition by the Supreme Court of British Columbia. While dissolving the marriage, it was held by that Court that the respondent herein would pay C$ 300/- to Sarabjit Kaur as maintenance for the present petitioner, i.e. his daughter. The respondent had further contended that it had also been kept concealed that the present petitioners' mother also owned a house in Surrey, Canada, worth C$ 8,79,000. Hence, it was contended by the respondent herein (before the learned courts below), that the present petitioner and her mother were affluent people and had simply filed the application and the petition to extort money from him.