GHASIRAM DAS Vs. ARUNDHATI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case exemplifies that justice delayed is justice denied. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the present appellant praying for restitution of conjugal rights u/ S. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The suit was instituted on 16-11-68 and the dispute is still pending in this appeal. At the institution of the suit the plaintiff-husband is described in the plaint as 42 years of age and that of the wife-respondent, against whom the prayer for restitution of conjugal rights was prayed for, was 35 years of age. During pendency of the litigation for the last 25 years the husband must have been 67 years old and the age of the wife must have been 60 years and the restitution of conjugal rights, if allowed hereafter will carry no sense.

(2.) The history of the case as narrated by the learned trial Court in the judgment passed in the suit is that the plaintiff had earlier filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights in the court of District Judge, Bolangir in the year 1957. In that suit the District Judge orders that the plaintiff should pay maintenance of Rs. 15/- per month and Rs. 25/- as cost of the litigation. The said order was passed on 6-10-1958. Though the litigation expenses was paid by the plaintiff, the maintenance was not paid. The case remained pending for some time and ultimately the same was dismissed for non-prosecution by the plaintiff. Thereafter the plaintiff has filed the present suit on 6-11-68 and in the suit the defendant filed an application u/ S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for interim maintenance and litigation expenses. By order dt. 18-12-70 the trial Court directed for payment of Rs. 100/- as litigation expenses rejecting the prayer for payment of monthly maintenance. The defendant filed an appeal before the District Judge who allowed the same (Misc. Appeal No. 5/71) on 7-3-74 directing that the plaintiff should pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 20/- to his wife and also Rs. 150/- more as litigation expenses. The plaintiff paid the litigation expenses on 29-4-74 but did not pay the monthly maintenance as ordered by the District Judge in the aforesaid appeal. It would thus be clear that even though order for monthly maintenance was passed from time to time by different courts from the year 1958 the defendant has not been paid any maintenance whatsoever. It was, therefore, contended before the learned trial Court that the plaintiff should not be allowed to proceed with the suit without first complying with the order for payment of maintenance. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties came to a conclusion that the plaintiff should be precluded from proceeding with hearing of the case and his case must be struck down. The suit was, therefore, dismissed. Against the said order of dismissal, the plaintiff preferred Title Appeal No. 3/21 of 1977/82 which was heard and disposed of by the Addl. District Judge, Bolangir. The appellate Court considering the legality of the order of dismissal of the suit concurred with the conclusion of the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal.

(3.) The only question for consideration in this appeal is whether the trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit for non-compliance of the order passed u/ S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.