KRISHNA KUMARI Vs. IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE HAMIRPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition arises as a consequence of proceedings seeking maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, from now on referred to as the Act. The petitioner is the wife. Ram Prasad Sahu respondent 3 is the husband. He instituted proceedings seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Act; pendente lite the proceeding for divorce the wife sought maintenance. The husband, the record shows, is a Signal Inspector and works for the Indian Railways. The wife is the daughter of a petty shopkeeper.

(2.) While the proceedings for divorce were pending the petitioner sought maintenance and/costs incurred to mitigate and defray the litigation expenses. For maintenance the claim was Rs. 700/per month. The claim for costs incurred at Rs. 3000/- and what may be incurred during litigation at Rs. 3700/-. The Civil Judge, Hamirpur, who considered the application for main tenance and costs, having rationally examined the matter and having considered the capacity of the husband to pay and the need of the wife for maintenance granted a modest maintenance of Rs. 300/-per month and costs incurred in litigation, so far at Rs. 600/-. This is the order of 17 October, 1986 passed on the application of the wife seeking maintenance and costs. The husband did not accept the order of the Civil Judge, Hamirpur.

(3.) It is on record that the proceedings were delayed by the husband when the matter was pending consideration before the Civil Judge, Hamirpur. He filed an Appeal No. 80 of 1986 before the Court of the IVth Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, hereinafter referred to as the Additional District Judge. The purpose of filing the appeal was clear. The order of the Civil Judge, Hamirpur, granting maintenance was stalled. The attempt being to seek a direction of remand so that whatever had been granted on maintenance and costs pendente lite the petition for divorce could be reviewed. The only plea raised in appeal before the Additional District Judge was in effect, that the respondent husband did not have an adequate opportunity to place evidence on record on the matter relating to the rate of maintenance and costs. Unfortunately, the appeal succeeded with the direction that the Civil Judge, Hamirpur, would reconsider the rate of maintenance and costs. This was the order of the Additional District Judge dated 15th May, 1987.