ANURADHA ALIAS CHANCHAL KUMARI Vs. SANTOSH NATH KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two appeals, (FAO 226/74 and FAO 17/75) both of which have been filed by the wife against two orders of Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Additional District Judge, Delhi, who was trying the petition of the appellant for dissolution of marriage or judicial separation on the ground of alleged impotency and/or cruelty mentioned in sections 12 and 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 25 of 1955, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 1. The material facts of the case arc that during the pendency of the petition of the wife, Mr. K. S. Sidhu. then presiding officer of the court below passed an order on 8th January, 1970 under section 24 of the Act directing the husband respondent to pay the wife maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 125.00 per month with effect from the date of the application, besides another sum of Rs. 250.00 on account of litigation expenses. This amount had been fixed with the consent of both the parties and the litigation expenses have been paid and the maintenance was also paid for two months.

(2.) It appears that the court below felt that the appellant was delaying the production of her evidence in support of the petition and so on 25th March, 1970 Mr. Sidhu passed an order directing that the order of maintenance pendente lite would remain in abeyance during the period the wife continued her default in producing the evidence. This order has been reproduced in the impugned order and will be referred to in detail hereinafter. Construction and legal effect of this order of Mr. Sidhu is the main subject of controversy before me.

(3.) From 25th March, 1970 up to 12th September, 1973 the wife, appellant before me, failed to produce her evidence, although her counsel has submitted that the fault did not lie entirely with the wife. However, the evidence commenced on 13th September, 1973 and the same has now been concluded.