SURESH KUMAR VERMA Vs. HEMLATA VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short 'the Code') the husband-petitioner has called in question the legal propriety of the order dated 11-1-2000 passed in Misc. Civil Case No. 6/99 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rewa.

(2.) THE facts as have been unfolded are that the marriage between the applicant and the wife/non-applicant was solemnised according to the Hindu rites. The applicant filed an application for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and obtained a decree for judicial separation on 24-9-19%. The petitioner endeavoured for restitution of the relationship but as his attempts became an exercise in futility he filed an application under Section 13 of the Act. As the non-applicant did not appear before the Trial Court on the dates fixed, an ex parte decree for divorce was passed on 10-3-1999. After the ex parte decree was passed the non-applicant wife filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside the ex parte decree along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. While this proceeding was pending the non-applicant filed an application under Section 24 of the Act on 6-12-1999 and claimed for grant of maintenance allowance and litigation expenses. The learned Additional District Judge considering the facts and circumstances of the case granted monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 2000/- and awarded Rs. 1000/- towards litigation expenses. The said order is the cause of grievance of the present revisionist.

(3.) ASSAILING the aforesaid order, it is submitted by Mr. J. L. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant that a proceeding under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC is not a substantive proceeding under the Act and, therefore, the Court below has fallen into error by allowing maintenance allowance and litigation expenses to the non-applicant. Submission of the learned counsel is that the concept of an application under Section 24 of the Act is quite different and the Court below has not kept in view the language employed in the said provision. Resisting the aforesaid submission Mr. Atulanand Awasthy, learned counsel for the non-applicant has submitted that the wife is entitled to get maintenance in the proceeding under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code, as neither of the spouses can be allowed to lead the life of a Church mouse. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case Dwarka Prasad Vs. Krishna Devi, 1986 JLJ 179. Mr. Ravish Agrawal, learned senior counsel who was present in Court at the time of hearing of this application was requested to act as a friend of the Court. He has submitted that the purpose of Section 24 of the the Act is to secure an indigent spouse some financial assistance to prosecute the case. It is his submission that no indigent spouse should be allowed to suffer during the pendency of the proceedings in his or her indigency and hence, the language employed under Section 24 of the Act has to be given a liberal interpretation. The learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Yogini Tiwari (Smt.) Vs. Basant Kumar Tiwari, 1996 (1) MPWN 155, Smt. Dipti Ghosh Vs. Swapan Kumar Ghosh, AIR 1991 Calcutta 414 and Madan Lal Vs. Meena, AIR 1988 Punjab and Haryana 31.