PUSHPABEN GOPALJI Vs. KANAKKUMAR AMRATLAL MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision application under sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the petitioner-wife has made a grievance regarding the order passed by the learned District Judge Kutch at Bhuj below application ex. 58 in H.M.P. No. 187 of 1978. By that order the petitioners application for interim maintenance under sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (the Act for short) came to be rejected by the learned trial Judge. A few facts leading to this application are required to be noted at the outset to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioners case is that she is lawfully married wife of the respondent. That the respondent has large economic resources and he is a big businessman carrying on diverse businesses in Kutch district. The respondent has filed Marriage Petition No. 187 of 1978 in the court of their learned Civil Judge (S.D.) at Bhuj. It appears that thereafter the petition was renumbered as HMP No. 4 of 1980 and was placed for disposal of the district court at Bhuj. The petitioner during the pendency of that petition applied vide ex. 130 for grant of cost of litigation and by ex. 58 she prayed for interim alimony under sec. 24 of the Act. Both these applications were heard and disposed of by a common order by the learned District Judge. We are not concerned with the order passed by him regarding cost of litigation in application ex. 30 as there is no dispute between the parties regarding the cost of litigation though Mr. Takwani for the respondent wanted to submit that even Rs. 3 0 as granted by the learned trial Judge by of cost of litigation in application ex. 30 is excessive. As there is no cross revision filed by the respondent challenging that order it must be held that it has become final. Consequently Mr. Takwani cannot be permitted to go behind that order. So far as the only aspect which remains for consideration is concerned it centres round grant of interim alimony to the petitioner wife as per her application ex. 58. The impugned order shows that the learned District Judge was of the view that prima facie there was some evidence to show that in September 1975 the petitioner-wife was paid Rs. 30 0 by a cheque by the respondent and consequently this amount was available to the petitioner for her maintenance and atleast from the interest income derived from that amount which might have been duly invested the petitioner would have got Rs. 30 per month and that would be sufficient for her maintenance. Consequently the learned trial Judge dismissed her application for interim alimony.

(3.) In my view the aforesaid approach of the learned District Judge with respect shows that the learned District Judge had not come to the grips of the main controversy and on a misconception of legal position had failed to exercise his jurisdiction vested in him under sec. 24 of the Act. The said provision reads as under: