GIDDI GOWTHAMI Vs. GIDDI SAMUEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 27-7-2004 passed in I.A.No. 162 of 2001 in O.P.No.790 of 2003 on the file of the District Judge, Vizianagaram, whereby the learned District Judge refused to grant interim alimony.

(2.) The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The respondent herein filed O.P.No.790 of 2003 for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner/wife filed I.A.No. 162 of 2001 under Section 36 of the Act for grant of interim alimony at the rate of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand only) per month and legal expenses of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) pending the main proceedings. The respondent/husband filed counter resisting the application. It is averred in the counter that the petitioner filed M.C.No.2 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram, claiming maintenance and the same was ended in dismissal on 25-2-2004, and therefore the petitioner/wife is not entitled for interim alimony pending disposal of the main proceedings in O.P.No.790 of 2003.

(3.) The learned District Judge on considering the material brought on record and on hearing both parties, refused to pass any order with regard to interim alimony and directed both the parties to get ready for disposal of the main petition. The operative portion of the order passed by the learned District Judge, Vizianagaram, reads thus: "Perused the record. The respondent stated that the petitioner resided only for two months after marriage and that subsequently, she never, obliged to lead conjugal life with him. He further stated that the petitioner resorted to filing of some petition or other against the petitioner. He stated that the Maintenance Case was dismissed on merits. He further stated that this is a case where the facts and circumstances have to be appreciated on merits. He prayed to dismiss the petition. Having gone through the respective contentions of both parties and hearing the learned counsel, I feel that the material available on record is not sufficient to come to a just decision in either way. Added to this, the learned Advocate for the respondent expressed his readiness for disposal of the main petition on merits. In view of the above attendant circumstances and background of the case, I feel that justice will be done to both parties by taking up the main O.P. itself. In view of the above, I direct both the parties to get ready for disposal of the main petition. Call this petition along with main petition. In the result, the petition is ordered to be called along with main Divorce Petition. Both the parties are directed to get ready for disposal of main divorce petition."