SADHANA DEEPAK NAIK Vs. DEEPAK LAXMAN NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Taken on the Board for Goal hearing with consent of the parties. The present applicant is the respondent in HMP No. 77 of 1991 filed by the non-applicant and it is pending in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Buldhana. The non-applicant has asked for divorce against the applicant on (he ground of cruelly-physical and mental as well as desertion. In Hindu marriage Petition No. 77/1991, it is contended that the applicant is residing at Pathak Galli, amalner, District Jalgaon.

(2.) AFTER service of the notice, the applicant filed (be application Under Section 24 of the Hindu marriage Act (for short "the H. M. Act") for alimony pendente lite and cost of the litigation. The trial Judge by his order dated 4-9-1991 awarded the amount of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- p. m. from the date of the application ie. 5-8-1991. On 28-1-1992 , the non-applicant deposited an amount of Rs. 750/- p. m. in the Court. However, thereafter, be failed to deposit the amount. It is contended that the applicant is a poor lady and she was unable to attend the Court at buldhana on 2-7-1992 because the non-applicant did not deposit the amount of maintenance for about six months. On 2-7-1992 when the matter was fixed for evidence her Advocate preferred an application for stay of the petition and in the alterative he prayed that direction should be given to the non-applicant to deposit the arrears. He further Bled the application for adjournment on the ground (bat the applicant could not remain present in the Court on account of non-receipt of the amount of maintenance. In application Ex. 31, filed on behalf of the present applicant, it is contended by her Advocate that the applicant could not remain present on each and every date of hearing for want of money and he received such message. Her Advocate further contended (hat he did not think that in her absence, to prosecute the matter for want of instructions and hence he prayed for adjournment for 15 days. The Advocate for the present non-applicant opposed the application by mentioning "that the application is opposed".

(3.) THE trial Judge rejected the application and observed that the non-applicant deposited the amount of maintenance of Rs. 750/- on 28-1-1992 and even today i. e. on 2-7-1992 he has deposited the amount of maintenance of Rs. 750/ -. It is further observed that the non-applicant was prolonging the matter on one ground or the other.