DHARMENDRA KUMAR Vs. PUSHPA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner is the husband of the respondent. They are governed by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Act' for short). Revision petitioner filed an application in the lower Court under S. 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Respondent herein appeared in Court in response to notice and filed an application under S.24 of the Act seeking interim maintenance and provision for expenses. The application was opposed but was allowed directing the revision petitioner to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/-per. month and to pay Rs. 500/- to enable the wife to meet the expenses of litigation. This order is now being challenged. We have heard learned counsel on admission.

(2.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he is not challenging the quantum of the award of the right of wife to make such a claim and he is confining his arguments only to one aspect, namely that since the lower Court did not make any effort for reconciliation under S. 23(2) of the Act, it had no jurisdiction to pass an order under S. 24. Learned counsel relied on a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Jagdish Chandra Kulshrestha v. Pramod Kumari (1993 (1) MPJR 455) holding that the requirement in S. 23(2) is mandatory and no relief, interim or final, can be granted by the Court without endeavouring reconciliation between the spouses.

(3.) In Jagdishchandra Kulshrestha's case, the learned Judge sought to understand the provisions of S. 23(2) of the Act keeping in view the Hindu point of view of marriage being indissolvable sacrament. The learned Judge took the view that there is no ambiguity in the provision which is mandatory and if this mandatory provision requiring endeavour to be made to bring about reconciliation is not followed, order granting relief under S. 24 is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. The learned Judge also understood the words 'before the Court proceeds to grant any relief under the Act' occurring in S. 23(2) as taking in relief under S.24 also. The attention of the learned Judge was not drawn to the observation of Sohani, J. (as he then was) in Gopal v. Dhapubai (C.R. No. 348 of 1983) reported in 1986 (2) MPWN (N) 76 to the effect that "S.24 of the Act is not controlled by S. 23 of the Act."