SUNIL BANSAL Vs. MEETA BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two points fell for consideration before this Court; firstly, whether the court can extend the time to file written statement beyond the period provided under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and secondly, whether the matrimonial suit should remain stayed until disposal of an application for alimony pendenti lite.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details the husband/petitioner filed a suit for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i), (ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'said Act') against the wife/opposite party. Admittedly, the summons of the suit was served upon the wife, who could not file the written statement within the time stipulated under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code. The summons appeared to have been served upon the wife/opposite party on 22nd May 2016 and she entered appearance on 6th August 2016 and filed an application under Section 24 of the said Act for alimony pendente lite. An objection to the said application was filed by the husband/petitioner and thereafter an application was taken out seeking amendment of the application under Section 24 of the said Act filed by the wife/opposite party. Subsequently, the application for amendment was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh application. The fresh application was filed, in terms of the leave granted by the court and the parties exchanged the affidavits.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the wife/opposite party sought for an adjournment on the first date of appearance to file the written statement and continued to ask for adjournments on diverse dates. In the midst the said suit, two applications came to be filed, one by the wife/opposite party seeking stay of all further proceedings of the suit till the disposal of the application for alimony pendente lite and the other by the husband/petitioner to fix the suit at the ex parte board as the time to file written statement has expired. In response to the said application, the wife/opposite party contended that unless the litigation cost is awarded to her, she is unable to file written statement and, therefore, the application for maintenance should be heard first and the time to file the written statement should not be extended.