KAMALJIT vs TALVINDER RANI — CRM-M/26216/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010766492026

Filing Number

CRM-M/35697/2026

Filing Date

05-May-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/26216/2026

Registration Date

07-May-2026

Judge

Justice (To Be Nominated)

Coram

Justice (To Be Nominated)

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

38.13 - QUASHING PETITIONS (AGNST WOMEN) ( 284 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KAMALJIT

    Adv. Akshay Jain

  2. 2.TALVINDERR RANI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.TALVINDER RANI

  2. 2.TALVINDERR RANI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Justice (To Be Nominated)View PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/26216/2026 Decision: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed petitioner Kamaljit's challenge to the Family Court's closure of his evidence, holding the lower court acted within its discretion. The petitioner had received 13 effective opportunities to present evidence since July 2025 but repeatedly sought adjournments without filing witness lists or producing evidence, despite undertakings and even restoration of ex parte proceedings. The Court rejected arguments that evidence closure denied fair trial, emphasizing that fair opportunity cannot become "endless indulgence" and courts must balance procedural fairness with judicial discipline to prevent abuse of process, especially in matrimonial disputes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/26216/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/26216/2026 Decision: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed petitioner Kamaljit's challenge to the Family Court's closure of his evidence, holding the lower court acted within its discretion. The petitioner had received 13 effective opportunities to present evidence since July 2025 but repeatedly sought adjournments without filing witness lists or producing evidence, despite undertakings and even restoration of ex parte proceedings. The Court rejected arguments that evidence closure denied fair trial, emphasizing that fair opportunity cannot become "endless indulgence" and courts must balance procedural fairness with judicial discipline to prevent abuse of process, especially in matrimonial disputes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case