GANGA DEVI Vs. KRUSHNA PRASAD SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF opposite party (husband) filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), with a prayer to dissolve the marriage between himself and the defendant petitioner (wife) by a decree of divorce, on grounds of her unsound mind and bad character. After filing the written statement, the defendant filed an application under Section 24 of the Act asking for maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 1000 per month, arrears of maintenance at Rs. 16,000 and Rs. 5000 towards expenses of the proceedings. She averred that she had no independent income to maintain herself and to meet the expenses of the suit filed against her. She alleged that the plaintiff is a rich business man having considerable immovable properties in lands and houses and that he possesses business of jewellery, spices and cosmetics etc. She estimated the average income of the plaintiff at Rs. 10,000 per month. The plaintiff challenged the aforesaid averments as untrue and asserted that his monthly income did not exceed Rs. 100 and that the defendant could maintain herself with a sum of Rs. 15 per month without assistance as she had her own independent means. Defendant filed certain interrogatories a copy of which was served on the plaintiff who filed an objection thereto. By his order dated 22-1-64 the learned district Judge rejected defendant's application for interrogatories. The Civil revision is against this order.

(2.) THE order of the learned District Judge is cryptic, and to appreciate the contentions, the entire order may be quoted-"these interrogatories are meant to be served on the plaintiff in an enquiry on the defendants petition filed under Section 24 of the Hindu marriage Act for maintenance. Order 11, Rule 1, C. P. C. applies only to suits and not to any interlocutory proceedings. So this application seems to be not maintainable. Also the interrogatories sought to be served appear to be in the nature of fishing out the evidence which the plaintiff may adduce in the matter. The purpose of interrogatories is to discover the nature of the case as distinct from the evidence. So even on merits. I do not think that the petition can be entertained. "

(3.) MR. Mohapatra in support of the order of the learned District Judge advanced the following contentions: