POONAM RAJENDRA MURKAR Vs. RAJENDRA VASANT MURKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. M.M. Vashi for the Petitioner and Mr. J.M. D'Silva for Respondent No. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. D'Silva waives service for Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 being formal party, service dispensed with. The Petitioner in her petition has basically challenged the inaction on the part of the learned Judge in deciding her application dated 17th Dec. 1991 and application annexed at Exhibit 'D' which is undated. By the first application Petitioner made 3 -4 prayers; firstly pertaining to interim alimony, secondly with reference to the expenditure for the purpose of attending legal proceedings and thirdly for custody of her minor children. At Exhibit 'D' which is annexed to the petition she prayed that she should be permitted to engage a lawyer.

(2.) IT appears that the first prayer in the application dated 17th December, 1991 has already been granted by the learned Judge. But the grievance of the petitioner appears to be that, notwithstanding passing such an order the amount is not being deposited and paid to the Petitioner. However, the learned Judge is not deciding the said application which contains two more prayers and also the application at Exhibit 'D'.

(3.) SINCE the application at Exhibit 'C' dated 17th December 1991 is pending from December, 1991, I direct that learned Judge should dispose off prayer Clauses (b) and (c) from application at Exhibit 'C' dated 17th December, 1991 before the end of December, 1992. The learned Judge while considering the application, particularly prayers (b) and (c), which have remained undecided should take into consideration the conduct of the husband, Respondent No. 1, in not complying with the order which is passed in terms of prayer (a) of the application. Rule made partly absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. Certified copy expedited.