SREEJA V Vs. PULIYANKALATH RAJESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 2nd December, 2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge of the Family Court, Bombay below Exh. 38 in Petition No. A-1724 of 2005, then pending in the Family Court at Mumbai, the appellant has filed this appeal. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under. The appellant married the respondent on 7th June, 1998 in Kerala as per Hindu Vedic rites. In the year 2005, the appellant filed petition bearing Petition No. A-1724 of 2005 at Family Court, Bandra, Bombay praying for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). In the petition, there were two prayers that is to say by prayer clause (a), the appellant had prayed for decree for restitution of conjugal rights and by prayer clause (b), the appellant had prayed that pending the hearing and disposal of the said petition, the respondent be directed to pay to the petitioner and her son Adithya R. a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards alimony and Rs. 10,000/- towards expenses of proceedings. By prayer clause (c) it was prayed that such other and further reliefs as the Court may deem fit considering the facts and circumstances of the case be granted.

(2.) During the pendency of this petition, the appellant wife filed an application below Exh.38 on 29th September, 2009. By the said application, she prayed for permanent maintenance for an amount of Rs. 35,000/- for herself and for her minor son along with final order under Section 25 along with decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the said Act. She also sought directions against the employer of the respondent as regards deduction of the amount from the salary of the respondent and deposit it in a bank account as mentioned in prayer clause (b) and for increasing the travelling and lodging expenses to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per visit. This application below Exh. 38 was decided by the learned Principal Judge of the Family Court (hereinafter referred to as the Family Court). By order dated 2nd December, 2009, the Family Court dismissed the said application.

(3.) It is worth noting that on the very day when this application below Exh. 38 was dismissed i.e. on 2nd December, 2005 the Family Court decided the main petition being Petition No. A-1724 of 2005 and decreed the same. The Family Court passed a decree in terms of prayer clause (a) thereby granting the prayer for restitution of conjugal rights. So far as prayer clause (b) of the petition relating to the interim maintenance, the Family Court observed as follows.