LALLUBHAI KESHAVRAM JOSHI Vs. NIRMALABEN JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises a very important question of law. In order to appreciate the implications involved in this appeal it will be worthwhile to state the facts giving rise to this appeal in a nut shell.

(2.) The appellant before this court is the husband of the present respondent Nirmalaben. The appellant had filed a petition No. 8 of 1966 under sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights on the ground that she had withdrawn herself from the society without any reasonable cause. During the pendency of the said petition the present respondent gave an application under sec. 24 of the Act for getting maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceeding. The learned trial Judge held that the present respondent had proved that she had no income of her own and that her husband was earning Rs. 100 to 125/per month. In the opinion of the learned trial Judge therefore she was entitled to receive Rs. 25/per month as maintenance and Rs. 50/as costs of the proceeding. However the learned trial Judge dismissed the application of the respondent for interim maintenance on the ground that she was disentitled to receive the same on account of her conduct. Against the said order of the learned trial Judge an appeal was preferred in the district court and the learned District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial court. He ordered that the present respondent should receive Rs. 25/as monthly maintenance and Rs. 50/as expenses for defending herself in the main proceeding. Against the said order of the learned District Judge the present appeal has been preferred to this court.

(3.) Mr. I. C. Bhatt learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned District Judge bad no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the court under sec 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In support of his say he referred to the case of Prithvirajsinhji Mansingh v. Shivprabhakumari and another A.I R. 1960 Bombay 315. In order. therefore to understand the implication it will be necessary to refer to secs. 24 and 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Sec. 24 says