MADAN LAL Vs. SANTOSH KUMARI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this miscellaneous application the meaningful question raised on behalf of the Petitioner (husband) is that the wife respondent is, not entitled to any litigation expenses under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act because the proceeding in the revision petition arising out of an order under Section 24 of the trial Court cannot be said to be 'any proceeding under this Act.

(2.) AFTER careful consideration I am of the considered opinion that the revision petition against the impugned order which has been passed under Section 24 of the Act will be deemed to be a proceeding under this Act. "It may be that the appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings as such, but at the same time, the revision -petition has been filed against an order under Section 24 of the Act which was passed in the proceedings under this Act. In this view of the matter, it could not be successfully urged that the Respondent is not entitled to the litigation expenses of this revision petition because this by itself is not 'a proceeding under the Act'. Even in Jalasutram Annapumamma's case (supra) it has been held "it is a common case that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceeding. The fact that an appeal lies under the Code of Civil Procedure against an order in a proceeding under the Act, will not make the appeal any -the -less a proceeding under the Act, for, the appeal also relates to the adjudication in respect of the lights conferred under the Act." On the same analogy the revision petition also relates to the adjudication in respect of the rights conferred under the Act. In that view of the matter, the revision petition cannot be said to be an independent proceeding in that sense for which the Respondent is not entitled to the litigation expenses. For all intents and purposes, it will be deemed to be a proceeding under the Act as it arises out of adjudication of the proceedings under the Act, and will affect the maintenance itself.