VINOD KUMARI Vs. AJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of a dispute between the husband and wife, for which the proceedings of divorce filed on behalf of the husband Ajay Kumar are pending in the Court of District Judge, Bhatinda.

(2.) Efforts for reconciliation were made by the learned District Judge and for that purpose the case was adjourned from time to time. Meanwhile the application filed on behalf of the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for claiming maintenance pendente lite remained pending. On 7th December, 1984 the case was adjourned to 11th December, 1984 for hearing on the application under Section 24 of the Act and for filing the written statement. On 11th December, 1984 the learned District Judge was on leave and the case was to come up on 15th December, 1984 for appropriate orders. On 15th December, 1984 no one appeared for the respondent-wife and so she was proceeded against ex parte and for ex parte evidence of the respondent the case was to come up on 8th January, 1985. Meanwhile, the wife filed Civil Revision in this Court on 7th January, 1985 and got the further proceedings stayed in the trial Court. On 15th December, 1984, itself an application was moved on behalf of the wife for setting aside the order of ex parte proceedings. Since meanwhile the further proceedings in the case were stayed by the High Court, no order was passed on the said application.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that before the wife could be called upon to file the written statement, her application under Section 24 of the Act should have been decided by the learned District Judge. It was held in Smt. Anjula v. Milan Kumar, 1981 AIR(All) 178, that the order requiring the wife to file written statement without deciding her application under Section 24 of the Act, is illegal. Under the circumstances the order passed on 7th December, 1984 as such was not warranted. The order passed on 15th December, 1984 directing that the wife be proceeded against ex parte is also liable to be set aside on the ground that an application was filed that very day for setting aside the said order. Consequently, it is directed that the application under Section 24 of the Act be decided first before the wife is called upon to file the written statement. It has been stated at the bar that 31st January, 1985 is the date already fixed by the trial Court. The parties have been directed to appear in that Court on that date. The parties have been directed to appear in that Court on that date. Since the parties are not to lead any evidence on the application under Section 24 of the Act, the same may be disposed of on that date, if possible. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.