NARINDERJIT KAUR ALIAS SHEETAL DEVI Vs. TERSEM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the order of a matrimonial Court declining to grant maintenance pendente lite as also litigation expenses to the wife, the present petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the order on score that only two affidavits against the wife were relied upon to hold that she had sufficient income for her upkeep as also to meet litigation expenses. According to the learned counsel, this was an extremely unsatisfactory way as such affidavits could easily be procured and in fact were so procured. He further contends that even the facts per se are not worthy of credence for no details are mentioned as to how the petitioner could be attributed earnings to the tune of Rs. 1,000 per mensem. He also laments that the young son born out of the wedlock was living with the petitioner and being maintained by her. In the alternative, it has been stressed that the business attributed to the petitioner being of knitting woollen garments, was seasonal in nature and could not be expected to be carried thoughout the year. Lastly, it has been contended that the husband is admitted to be earning Rs. 200 per mensem and at least that be taken into account to grant the petitioner some share out of that income.

(3.) All these points raised are controversial and lead to reappraisal of facts, which in a revision petition this Court refrains from doing so. The matrimonial Court of the first instance is the best Judge for the purpose. The Legislature advisedly in the amendment caused to section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act rendered orders under Section 24 of this Act to be non-appealable. In the very nature of things, these are interim unders and do not finally settle the controversy between the parties more so when the original proceedings, in accordance with Section 21-B of the said Act, are required to be concluded within six months from the date of the service of the petition on the respondent. It appears that the petition is pending before the matrimonial. It appears more than 1-1/2 years and yet it has not been concluded. This is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. The matrimonial Court is directed to dispose of the petition positively within a period of one month from today as it has been stated to me at the bar that the evidence of the respondent has been closed and the case is fixed for rebuttal evidence of the petitioner on 27th of January, 1982. The case being at the fag end should not brook any more delay. Dismissed with these observations. No costs.