MANJU Vs. SUDHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. V. S. Samvatsar, Counsel for the applicant; Mr. J. C. Yadav for non-applicant. Both of them have been heard.

(2.) MR. Samvatsar explains the office note which is in respect of the endorsement made in the copy of the relevant document annexed to the petition. Keeping in view the broader approach, the said office note stands dismissed.

(3.) THE applicant and non-applicant are wife and husband and presently they are having strained relations because of matrimonial disputes. The wife has preferred the application for pendente lite alimony and for getting the amount for meeting out the expenditure of litigation. The Matrimonial Court passed the order and directed the non-applicant, Sudhir, the husband to give Rs. 1,000/- for meeting out the expenditure of litigation to applicant, Majnu, the wife. The Matrimonial Court also directed non-applicant Sudhir to give Rs. 500/- per month to applicant Manju as pendente lite alimony. The Matrimonial Court also expressed the opinion in the order that it is not necessary it call the children to the Court for the purpose of ascertaining whether they desire to meet the mother. These are the points which are in controversy and have been argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.