PREM PRAKASH Vs. NIRMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage, the correctness of an order of the learned Additional District Judge, dated 10-11-2004 on an application moved under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereafter ?the Act?) has been challenged.

(2.) The parties to the proceedings, viz the Appellant and the first respondent, were married to each other on 29-5-1985 in accordance with Hindu rites, in Delhi. The appellant was working as a Scientific Officer with the Rajasthan Power Station, Rawalbhata, Rajasthan. The second respondent, Ms. Jyotsna, was born to the first respondent during the subsistence of the marriage, on 21-4-1987. The appellant instituted divorce proceedings, on grounds of cruelty and desertion, before the District Judge, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. The appellant levelled allegations of adultery against the first respondent, and these apparently influenced the District Judge to dismiss an application for maintenance filed by her. Criminal proceedings too were initiated by the first respondent, and ultimately she approached the Supreme Court, for transfer of the divorce proceedings pending in Rajasthan.

(3.) The transfer petition was disposed off on 11-4-1991, recording agreement of the parties to end the disputes, and seek dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent. During the course of the order of the Supreme Court, it set aside/ deleted the findings of the District Judge, Chittorgarh, regarding the allegations of adultery, and directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 500/- to the first respondent and the child, Jyotsna; liberty was reserved to either party to seek variation of the order, on that score. Another order was passed on 3-10-1991, by the Supreme Court, inter alia, directing deletion of allegations that the child was born out of the living together of the parties. The petitioner appears to have declined to pay the maintenance amounts; this led to initiation of contempt proceedings, before the Supreme Court. On 8th August, 1994, the Court recorded a concession on his behalf the amount would be paid, and that he was not justified in refusing to pay the amounts on the ground that the first respondent had re-married. The appellant again approached the court, for modification of the direction in so far as it pertained to the direction to continue to pay the amount of Rs. 500/- per month. That application was rejected by order dated 24-8-1998. Earlier, another application had been rejected by the Supreme Court in 1996.