S.SUMATHI Vs. R.SHARAVANAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the representation, from time to time, by several Associations of Women, other Organizations and individuals, The Family Courts Act, 1984 came into being and Family Courts were established with exclusive jurisdiction for speedy settlement of family disputes [see the statements of object and reasons of The Family Courts Act]. But, in reality, whether the said object is anywhere near accomplishment Nodding her head in the negative, a woman, who is locked in a matrimonial dispute, has come up with this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking a direction for speedy disposal. The first petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition is the wife of the respondent and the second petitioner is their minor daughter. The respondent has filed H.M.O.P. No. 137 of 2010 before the Family Court, Coimbatore, seeking a decree of divorce. While so, the petitioners herein have filed I.A. No. 1924 of 2010 seeking alimony pendente lite and also litigation expenses. To be precise, the wife claims interim alimony of Rs. 31,000/- per month and the daughter claims a sum of Rs. 3,700/- per month and Rs. 35,100/- towards yearly expenses to the wife and Rs. 28,600/- towards yearly expenses of the daughter and Rs. 5,000/- towards the litigation expenses. The said Interlocutory Application is still pending along with H.M.O.P. No. 137 of 2010. At this stage, the petitioners have come up with this Civil Revision Petition seeking a direction to the Family Court to dispose of I.A. No. 1924 of 2010 within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

(2.) This Civil Revision Petition has come up for admission. I have heard the learned counsel Mr. R. Sankaranarayanan assisted by Ms. K. Sumathi for the petitioner and I have also perused the records carefully. No notice is ordered to the respondent as this order will not in any manner be prejudicial to the interest of the respondent.

(3.) As I have already pointed out, I.A. No. 1924 of 2010 has been filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) both by the wife and the daughter of the respondent jointly. During the course of hearing, a doubt arose in the mind of this Court as to how a daughter of the litigating spouses can be a party to a petition under Section 24 of the Act, claiming maintenance pendente lite. Therefore, this Court invited the learned counsel for the petitioner to advance arguments on the very maintainability of the Interlocutory Application under Section 24 of the Act by the daughter.