JAYA SINHA Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner wife has filed this writ application against the order dated 3.9.2008 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Saran at Chapra in Divorce Case No. 156 of 2006. According to the petitioner the Court below has directed the respondent to pay only Rs. 750 per month as her expenses of the proceeding of this case. In spite of service of notice the respondent has not appeared. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Court below has not granted any opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence in support of her claim that the respondent earns Rs. 50,000 per month but the learned Court below only on the presumption directed the respondent to pay the said amount stated above.

(2.) From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned Court below has not given any finding regarding the income of the respondent. It appears that after noting the case of the parties abruptly directed the respondent to pay Rs. 750 per month to the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner she is ready to adduce evidence in support of her case and, therefore, the amount may be enhanced. So far as this question is concerned, it appears that the petitioner never prayed before the Court below. In the impugned order the Court below has also not given any finding and it is difficult to give any finding regarding the income unless there is evidence on record. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is granted liberty to adduce evidence in support of her case to prove the monthly income of her husband-respondent. The respondent may rebut the same by adducing evidence. The petitioner shall file application before the Court below praying for permission to adduce evidence. If such application is filed, the Court below shall consider the same and allow the parties to adduce evidence. The Court below shall also consider the fact that as to why the order should not be passed from the date of filing of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. During this period the impugned order dated 3.9.2008 passed in this case shall continue to be complied with by the respondent.