RAJKUMARI Vs. TRILOK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying mainly for the quashing of an order passed by the District Judge on 24th January, 1956, and for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the District Judge to decide afresh the petitioner's application for grant of maintenance and expenses of the proceedings, pending before the District Judge.

(2.) The petitioner was married to the respondent in April 1948 and two children have been born, both of whom happen to be girls. It is a matter of controversy whether the petitioner refused to live with her husband or the husband did not permit the petitioner to live with him. The husband, namely, the first respondent made an application under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Act No. 25 of 1955). Under Section 10 of the above Act, either party to a marriage is authorised to present a petition to the District Court praying for a decree for judicial separation on the grounds enumerated in the section. During the pendency of this petition, the wife who is the respondent in the petition, made an application to the District Judge under Section 24 of the Act for the grant of maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings and for the expenses of the proceedings. This application has been dismissed by the District Judge by the impugned order, On the preliminary ground that it is not possible to pass an order granting maintenance pending the litigation or the expenses of the proceedings against the original petitioner who starts the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act. In order to appreciate the view taken by the learned District Judge it appears to be desirable to quote Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The section runs as follows:

(3.) For the above reasons, I think that the order of the learned District Judge contains a patent error of law in it, and this patent error had had the effect of depriving the learned District Judge of the jurisdiction to pass a suitable order on the application.