Previous

Suman And Another v. Bhoop Singh

Suman And Another v. Bhoop Singh

(High Court Of Punjab And Haryana)

CR-1728-2022 | 06-05-2022

ARUN PALLI, J.

1. Vide this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for setting aside the order dated 07.02.2022, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hisar, vide which their defence has been struck off.

2. The petition filed by the respondent under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 claiming custody of his minor daughter - Jasvin and son - Mayank, who are currently in the custody of the petitioners, is pending adjudication.

3. Ex facie, despite repeated opportunities, the petitioners failed to submit their response and did not even choose to appear before the Court on the date fixed. As a result, defence of the petitioners was struck off. Undoubtedly, the petitioners have been remiss and failed to pursue their cause with diligence. But it shall be equally true that in the event, they are not permitted to submit their written statement and contest the petition on merit in every likelihood, their rights and interest would be severally effected. Therefore, to secure the ends of justice, in the opinion of this Court, they are required to be afforded one opportunity to file reply/ response and contest the matter. However, to settle the equities, for owing to the delay caused by the petitioners, the matter has not made any tangible progress in the past, the respondent deserves to be compensated with suitable costs.

4. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order dated 07.02.2022 is set aside. The Family Court, Hisar shall afford one effective opportunity to the petitioners to submit their written statement/response, which, however, shall be subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-. It is made clear that in the event, the petitioners fail to submit the written statement on or before the stipulated date or default to tender costs, as indicated above, their defence would be deemed to have been struck off and no further adjournment shall be granted by the Court in this regard.

5. This order is being passed without issuing any formal notice to the respondent so as to avert any further delay in the proceedings pending before the trial Court and to save the expenses that he shall have to incur to defend these proceedings. Just in case, the respondent would have any grievance, he shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application in this case.

Advocate List
Bench
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Eq Citations
  • NON-REPORTABLE
  • LQ/PunjHC/2022/8275
Head Note

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, S. 25 — Custody of minor children — Defence of petitioners (grandparents) struck off for non-filing of written statement despite opportunities — Held, since it would severely affect rights and interests of petitioners, they deserve one opportunity to file written statement/reply on payment of costs of Rs 10,000 to respondent (father) for delay caused — However, if they fail to file reply by stipulated date or don't pay costs, their defence shall be struck off with no further adjournment — Family Court directed accordingly — Constitution of India, Art. 227. Key points: - Petition by grandparents against order striking off their defence in custody case filed by father under S. 25 of Guardians and Wards Act. - Despite opportunities, they failed to file written statement/reply. - Held, they deserve one last chance to file reply on payment of Rs 10,000 costs to father for delay. - If they fail to file reply or don't pay costs by date fixed, their defence shall stand struck off with no further adjournment. - Family Court directed to allow them to file reply subject to above conditions.