JITENDER Vs. SUNITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is against the order in the application filed by the father in a matrimonial proceeding initiated by the wife for divorce. It is rather strange that the father, who had the custody of the child, moved an application seeking for direction as regards interim order and wanted that the child must be taken care of by the mother. The mother contested in the petition by saying that she has no resources and she, therefore, cannot take care of the child. It is stated by the counsel for the husband that the interim maintenance has been awarded in favour of the wife at Rs. 2,000/- per month and that his client is also paying the same. The counsel states that the application could not have been dismissed without a full-fledged enquiry regarding the issue relating to the welfare of the child. He states that since he has to take the burden of bringing up the child, he has not been able to attend his office and, therefore, he has been removed from service.

(2.) PROCEEDINGS for interim maintenance or interim custody under Section 24 or 26 are summary in character and there is no need for a full-fledged trial as the counsel would plead for. It could be different in petitions filed under the Guardian & Wards Act under Section 25 seeking for custody where the petition itself could be the principal contention between the parties. The proceeding for custody in matrimonial proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act would not be required to be dealt with in the same fashion as might be necessary for petition under Section 25 of the Guardian & Wards Act.

(3.) THE appeal is dismissed with the above observations.