SHRI KRISHNA KISHORE MUKHERJEE Vs. SMT. MANDIRA MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional petition is at the instance of the husband, who challenged the impugned order dated March 21, 1997 passed ex parte under sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Apt, 1955 directing him to pay maintenance @ Rs. 1,500/ per month to the wife and Rs. 1,000.00 per month to their son as also Rs. 7,000.00 as litigation cost with effect from the date of filing of such petition i e. Sept. 1, 1994. There was an earlier order dated July 12, 1996 for payment of ad interim maintenance @ Rs. 400.00per month to the wife and Rs. 100.00 per month to their minor son, which was adjustable against the final order under sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

(2.) In a pending matrimonial suit, being matrimonial suit no. 776 of 1994 (re-numbered as matrimonial suit no. 7 of 1996), the petitioner-wife filed an application dated Sept. 1, 1994 under sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying therein for maintenance pendente life to the tune of Rs. 2,000.00 per month for herself and Rs. 1,800.00 per month for the child of the parties and also Rs. 10,000.00 as litigation cost. The respondent-husband being the present petitioner filed an objection to the aforesaid application, the matter remained pending for over 2 years till July 12,1996 when, under compelling circumstance, the Court below had to pass an order for ad interim maintenance referred to above. Even, thereafter, there was some delay in payment of the consolidated amount of ad interim maintenance together with costs granted in favour of the wife. Ultimately, on March 21, 1997, the Court below preferred to dispose of the wife's application on the basis of ex parte hearing for the reason recorded in the impugned order that in spite of 3 or 4 adjournments already granted to (be husband, there was still another petition for adjournment on that date, and the lawyer on his behalf even preferred not to move the said petition and, accordingly, the Court proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the wife and passed the impugned order. Be it placed on record that the impugned order does not speak if any evidence either oral or documentary was adduced ex parte on behalf of the wife. The Court below took notice on factual score that the husband was having an earning of Rs. 9,000.00 per month, whereas the wife had got to means of income. It was in the light of this fact alone that the impugned order had been passed.

(3.) At this juncture, I feel inclined to place on the record some un-controverted facts. The solemnisation of the marriage between the parties is a fact not at all denied. It was, further, admitted that there was a son borne out of the wedlock, who is for the present aged about 9 years and is in the custody of the mother. The son is a school going child under the care of the mother, who was residing in her parental house at Calcutta and not in the matrimonial home. The husband being employed as Preventive Officer of Customs Department was posted as an Intelligence Officer under Collectorate of Customs, Balard Estate, Bombay.