RENU NATH Vs. BHARATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the Order dated 04. 10. 2005 passed by the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Shillong staying further proceedings of Civil Misc. Application (Mat) Case No. 7 (T) of 2004, arising out of Maintenance Case No. 7 (T) 2004 under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) I have heard Mr. DK Thapa, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Sen, the learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) THE facts giving rise to this Revision Petition are not in dispute. The petitioner filed an application under Section 19 and 21 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, (the Act for short) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, being Civil Misc. Application (Mat) Case 7 (T) 2004 claiming maintenance allowance for herself and her three minor children from the opposite party. Her claim is founded on the facts that she is the lawfully wedded wife of (L) Prasun Kumar Nath, who was the son of the respondent and that the three children, who are under her custody and care after the death of the said Prasun Kumar Nath, were born from her wedlock with the said Prasun Kumar Nath. Simultaneously, the petitioner also filed an application before the same Court for grant of interim maintenance pending disposal of the main case. The respondent resisted the interim application by filing her written objection claiming, inter alia, that the petitioner is not the wife of her deceased son and that the interim application was hit by Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure inasmuch as the substantial issue i. e. whether the petitioner is the wife of the deceased Prasun Kumar Nath involved in this application is also one of the substantial issues in Title Suit No. 43 (T) 2002/ Misc. Case No. 83 (T) 2003 pending before the learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, which was filed prior to the filing of this application and, therefore, the interim application was liable to be stayed accordingly. It was contended by the respondent that if the interim application was not stayed pending final determination of the said issue in Title Suit No. 43 (T) 2002, it would result in inconsistent judicial findings. A number of points have also been raised by the respondent in her written objection with which we are not concerned herein. It may not be out place to point out here that the interim application was allowed by the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 28. 09. 2004 and granted a maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month to the petitioner to be paid by the respondent. This order was challenged by the respondent in a Revision petition before this Court in CR (P) No. 44 (SH) 2004 and the same was set aside by this Court by the order dated 29. 11. 2004 with a direction to the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner to hear the parties on the issue of interim maintenance after taking into account the disputes raised by the parties in Title Suit No. 43 (T) 2002. On remand, the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner after hearing both the parties held that since the question whether the petitioner is the wife of the deceased was one of the direct and substantial issues common to both the proceedings i. e. the maintenance proceedings and Title Suit No. 43 (T) 2002, the interim application ought to be stayed pending the decision of the Title Suit by the learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, which he accordingly did by the impugned judgment and order. The validity of this order is now under challenge in this application.