KIRAN SAINI Vs. SURINDER MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Kiran Saini has filed this revision petition against the order of the learned District Judge, Chandigarh, dated July 16, 1977, which reads as under :-

(2.) The short contention of Mr. Bhagirath Dass, learned counsel for the petitioner, was that the learned District Judge acted illegally and with material irregularity in holding that unless the case of both the parties was known, it would be difficult to decide the petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The precise contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that it was incumbent on the learned District Judge to have decided expeditiously the application filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Act and that he could not postpone the hearing and final disposal of that application on the ground that the written statement had not been filed.

(3.) After giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter in the light of the contentions advanced on either side by the learned counsel, I am of the view that there is considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 24 of the Act reads as under :-