BHARTI NAMDEO Vs. SHIV NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred by the applicant/ defendant against the rejection of her application for enhancement of the interim maintenance granted under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and also against the order closing the case without permitting her to examine her parents.

(2.) The non-applicant/plaintiff filed a petition for divorce under Sec. 13 of the Act on the ground of cruelty alleged to have been committed on him by the applicant and her father. The applicant denied the charge and alleged cruelty on the part of the non-applicant/husband. The non-applicant made reference to the cruelties committed by his father-in-law in paras 3 to 5 of the petition, while the applicant in her written statement in paras 5 and 12 referred to the incidents which took place in the presence of her mother. Therefore, there can be no doubt that both of them are material witnesses in the case. On the date of evidence on 17/7/1981, the applicant after examining herself and other witnesses made a prayer for examination of her father, who was present in the Court, and her mother. The prayer has been rejected. By the same order, the Court refused to modify the interim maintenance granted on 2.3-1979 at the rate of Rs. 55.00 per month.

(3.) I think the trial Court has committed an error in not permitting the applicant to examine her parents, while the Court was right in refusing to modify the interim maintenance granted earlier, because there is no corresponding provision as contained in Sec. 127 of the Cr. Procedure Code allowing modification in the maintenance granted.