M B VEDA @ VEDAVALLI Vs. P S KUPPUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING Section 483, Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner in MC. No. 483 of 1989 pending before the Principal Family Court, Madras, seeks a direction to the learned Judge to dispose of the above M.C. at an early date. The petitioner had filed the above case claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr. PC. against the respondent, her husband. She had also filed Cr. M.P. No. 865/1989 on the same day, praying for interim maintenance till the disposal of the main case. It is stated that while the above petitions were pending, the respondent filed Matrimonial O.P. No. 1183 of 1989 in the same Court under Section 13(l)(la)(1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The petitioner had filed her counter statement and had also filed M.P. No. 996 of 1990 under Section 24 of that Act claiming interim maintenance of Rs. 750/ - per month. The respondent is said to be working in B.H.E.L. as Assistant, Grade II, and earning a salary of Rs. 2,700/ - per month. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that though her maintenance application was filed as early as in the November, 1989 together with an application for interim maintenance, the learned Family Court Judge, had not taken up maintenance petition for enquiry and had not passed any orders even on the interim maintenance petition. On the contrary the learned Judge had posted those applications along with the Matrimonial O.P. and it is urged that clubbing the maintenance proceedings, which are to be summary in nature and intended to grant speedy and cheap relief to those in distress, with a full fledged Matrimonial O.P. for divorce, has placed the petitioner in a very difficult position unable to maintain herself being forced to attend the Courts periodically for no useful purpose. On these facts a direction is prayed for to the learned Family Court Judge to dispose of the maintenance petition as well as the petition for interim maintenance without tacking them on to the Matrimonial OP.

(2.) NOTICE was sent to the respondent. Though notice has been served, he has failed to appear, nor is he represented by any Counsel.

(3.) MR . V. Ashok, learned Counsel for the petitioner who reiterated the averments made in the petition would contend that the petitioner is uneducated and therefore, unfit for employment and is not being maintained even by her parents and as such the learned Judge should at least pass orders on the application for interim maintenance and dispose of the main petition for maintenance, and should not club them with the main Matrimonial O.P. which would result in dragging on matters.