Rajnish Kumar vs Parveen Kumari And Others

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite making all efforts, petitioner is not responding to him and, therefore, he is not in a position to

plead the case on behalf of the petitioner.

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing impugned order dated 29.09.2020, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Una,

District Una, H.P., in CIS Regd. No.89/2019, titled as Parveen Kumari vs. Rajnish Kumar, whereby respondents have been awarded maintenance to

be paid by the petitioner. Therefore, it is duty of the petitioner to make arrangement for his representation and to impart instructions to his learned

counsel, enabling him to plead case of the petitioner.

On the first day vide order dated 24.02.2021, interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner subject to deposit of 50% of the maintenance

amount in the Registry of this Court, but for failure in compliance of the said order, stay stands vacated automatically as clarified vide order dated

19.04.2021. Thereafter also, petitioner has not come forward to pursue the present case.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, petition is dismissed for non prosecution.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

Respondents are permitted to produce a copy of this order, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the

authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy but if required, may verify it from Website of the High

Court.