VINODINI Vs. GOPINATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/wife has come to this Court aggrieved by Ext. P4 order. Her husband, the respondent herein has filed an application for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against her. In as much as the period of one year prescribed under Section 14 of the Act has not elapsed from the date of the marriage, he has filed an application for leave to entertain the petition even before the lapse of the period of one year.

(2.) While that petition was pending, the petitioner herein filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. She prayed that she may be awarded maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings. By the impugned order, a copy of which is produced as Ext. P4, the court below has not considered the prayer under Section 24 on the short ground that no proceedings are pending to justify invocation of the provisions of Section 24. The Family Court it would appear did not reckon the proceedings under Section 13, while a petition for leave under Section 14 is pending, as a proceedings to which the provisions of Section 24 would apply.

(3.) From principle, precedent or statutory provisions, I am unable to accept the view taken by the court below. The expression 'proceedings' in language and considered in the context, according to me, must certainly include proceedings initiated under Section 13 along with an application for leave under the proviso to Section 14. I am unable to accept the argument that such proceedings cannot be reckoned as proceedings to which the provisions of Section 24 would apply. The claim is for divorce. The claim for divorce cannot be entertained unless leave under the proviso to Section 14 is granted. In the petition under Section 13 and in the petition under Section 14 for leave, the petitioner that is the respondent in the O.P (HMA) js entitled to be heard. The court is bound to consider the submissions of both sides and pass orders. In these circumstances, the contention of the counsel for the respondent and the conclusion of the court below that proceedings under Section 24 would not include such proceedings under Section 13, where there is a petition under the proviso to Section 14 also, cannot be accepted,