SURESH PRASAD Vs. MANORAMA DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision application is by the husband, Suresh Prasad. It is directed against an order dated 17th May, 1971 passed by Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Arrah, in Title Suit No. 146 of 1970, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act 25 of 1955) (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') directing the husband to Pay to his wife, the opposite party, maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs 75/-per month and a sum of Rs. 200/- to meet the expenses of the proceeding. This application was originally placed for hearing before Untwalia. J. (as he then was) who has been pleased to refer this matter to a Division Bench. That is how this matter is now before this Bench.

(2.) The petitioner and the opposite party got married on the 9th February. 1957. In 1970 the petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce on the allegations, inter alia, that the opposite party surreptitiously left the petitioner's house carrying away with herself ornaments and other articles and was now residing with her father where she had started a grocery shop and that she was living in adultery. The said petition was numbered as Title Suit No. 146 of 1970 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge. 1st Court. Arrah. The opposite party by her written statement, filed on 22nd February. 1971, has challenged the allegations made against her. On the 17th March. 1971, the opposite party filed a petition under Section 24 of the Act praying for award of Rs. 300/- as expenses to prosecute her defence in the said title suit and Rupees 100/- per month as maintenance pendente lite. It is not necessary to go into the other statements made by the opposite party in support of her petition under Section 24 of the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge on hearing the parties passed an order allowing monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75/-and a sum of Rs. 200/- towards the expenses for the litigation to be paid by the petitioner to the opposite party. The petitioner being aggrieved by that order has moved this Court through a Civil Revision application.

(3.) The application was Initially placed before Untwalia, J. (as he then was) for hearing. A preliminary objection was raised with regard to the maintainability of the application on the ground that in terms of Section 28 of the Act, an appeal lay against the aforesaid order.