Sukhgeet Kaur vs Rupinder Singh on 16 July, 2009

The case of Sukhgeet Kaur vs. Rupinder Singh, decided on July 16, 2009, by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, revolves around a revision petition filed by the petitioner-wife. The case primarily concerns the amendment of a replication in a divorce proceeding initiated by the respondent-husband. The hearing was presided over by Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal.


Sukhgeet Kaur, the petitioner, sought to set aside an order dated May 30, 2008, passed by the District Judge of Chandigarh. This order allowed the respondent-husband, Rupinder Singh, to amend the replication under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner contested this amendment in the divorce proceedings, which were initially filed on the grounds of cruelty.

Key Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner’s counsel, Ms. Lovejinder Kaur, argued that the amendment to the replication was unjust and prejudicial to her client’s interests. The petitioner sought to have the District Judge’s order annulled, asserting that it was detrimental to her position in the divorce proceedings.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent’s counsel, Mr. N.S. Bawa, contended that the marriage had already been dissolved through a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. He argued that this development rendered the petition moot. He requested the court to dispose of the petition on these grounds.

Court’s Observations

Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal observed that, according to the respondent’s counsel, the mutual consent divorce decree had rendered the petition moot. The court noted that the petitioner’s counsel did not have instructions regarding the dissolution of the marriage but did not oppose the disposal of the petition on the grounds of it being rendered infructuous. However, the petitioner requested the liberty to revive the petition if the respondent’s statements were found to be incorrect.

Court’s Decision

In light of the arguments presented, the court decided to dispose of the petition as having been rendered infructuous due to the mutual consent divorce decree. The court granted the petitioner the liberty to move an application for the revival of the petition if the statements made by the respondent’s counsel were found to be incorrect.


The decision in Sukhgeet Kaur vs. Rupinder Singh underscores the importance of judicial efficiency and the need to resolve disputes in a manner that reflects the current status of the parties involved. By disposing of the petition as infructuous while allowing for the possibility of revival, the court ensured that justice could still be pursued if necessary. This case highlights the dynamic nature of legal proceedings and the court’s role in adapting to new developments to deliver fair outcomes.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *