BHUPINDER KUMAR Vs. ANGOORI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be termed or construed as proceedings, within the meaning of the expression "in any proceedings under this Act" appearing in Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, is the short question that falls for consideration in this Civil Revision.

(2.) IT may be appropriate to refer to the necessary facts giving rise to this petition.

(3.) THE wife-respondent refused to accept the summons through registered cover and she is stated to have been served in the ordinary process. However, as nobody appears on her behalf on 5. 6. 1995, the date of hearing, therefore, she was directed to be proceeded against ex-parte by the learned Court. The petitioner before the trial Court examined himself annulling the marriage between the parties on 8. 6. 1995. Having come to know of this ex-parte decree, the wife-respondent filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'code') for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 8. 6. 1995 on 18. 10. 1995. During the pendency of this application, an application Under Section 24 of the Act was also filed by the wife-respondent claiming interim maintenance and litigation expenses. In the application Under Section 24 of the Act. It was stated that carry home salary of the husband was Rs. 2800.00 plus. The husband is employed as Sub Inspector in the Cooperative Department. The learned trial Court vide order dated 17th October, 19% allowed this application Under Section 24 of the Act while granting Rs. 600.00 per month as interim maintenance with effect from the date of application i. e. 12. 1. 1996 and Rs. 1000.00 as litigation expenses. It is this order which has been impugned in this revision petition.