RITA HAGO Vs. V P MAGO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is, indeed, an odd petition. The wife commenced proceedings for divorce and obtained an ex-parte decree. She now wants to have that judgment revised, though it is in her favour. Nat that she seeks reversal of the decree. Her complaint is that the judgment impliedly rejects her application for incerirn maintenance, and it is in that respect that she is aggrieved. The argument will become mare comprehensible after I state the facts.

(2.) On 18th January 1979, the wife filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by her husband. Along with the petition, she filed an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for inaintenance pendente lite for herself and her infant daughter, and expenses of the proceedings. On 22nd January 1979, the Additional District Judge made an order that the petition be registered and 'Notice be issued to the respondent' for 1st March 1979. Nothing was said about the application for interim maintenance. A process fee of Rs. 1.50 had already been filed with the petition. This is the fee prescribed for issuing notice of a petition or application in the District Courts. Although on the process fee form it was stated that the purpose of filing the process fee was Service of summons of position on respondent along with Section 24 application', notice could be issued either of the position or the application and not both because only a single process fee had been filed. No further process fee was filed after the order that notice should issue. In these circumstances, as was to be expected, only notice of the main proceeding, i.e. the petition, Was is issued to the husband. The application lay unattended.

(3.) On 1st March 1979 it was reported that the husband had not been served as he had gone out of India. The judge ordered notice to issue again for 9th April 1979, and directed the wife to furnish the address of the husband. The process fee, if any, filed pursuant to this order does not appear to be on record.