LAWS(RAJ)-1990-8-40

VIJAYA KAUR Vs. RADHEY SHYAM

Decided On August 01, 1990
VIJAYA KAUR Appellant
V/S
RADHEY SHYAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed under section 19, Family Courts- Act, 1984 against the order of Shri Amarnath Purohit, Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur dated March 31,1990 by which he dismissed the application of the appellant praying that the respondent be directed to pay Rs. 200/- to his witness Yashpal Singh in compliance with the order dated September 16,1989 directing her to pay same. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.

(2.) THE respondent Radheyshyam has filed a petition for divorce against his wife Smt. Vijay Kumar (appellant ). An application under sec. 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (herein-after to be referred to as 'the Act') was moved the appellant for the grant of maintenance pendent-lite and necessary expenses of the proceedings. By order dated January 31,1989, maintenance @ Rs. 300/- and Rs. 100/- per month was granted to the appellant and each child respectively. On September 16,1989, examination-in-chief of the respondent's witness Yashpal Singh was recorded. THE appellant sought adjournment for his cross-examination,it was seriously opposed by the respondent on the ground that the witness had come from Bikaner. THE appellant was granted adjournment and the cross-examination of the witness Yashpal Singh was deferred on payment of Rs. 200/- by her to the witness. On the adjourned date, the witness Yashpal Singh was cross-examined by the appellant but she did not pay the said amount of Rs. 200/- to the witness. On September 29, she moved an application under section 24 of the Act praying that the respondent be directed to make payment of the said amount of Rs. 200/-to the witness Yashpal Singh and also to pay Rs. 140/- which she has incurred in obtaining the certified copies of document and getting matters typed. After taking its reply and hearing the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the application by its order under appeal.

(3.) IN the "v. C. Shukla Vs. State", (3) S. C. 962, expression 'interlocutory order' was interpreted it would be best to quote here paragraphs 23 and 95. They runs as under:- 23. Thus bustling up the natural and logical meaning or an interlocutory order, the conclusion is inescapable that an order which dose not tarninate the proceedings or finally decide the rights of the parties is only an interlocutory order, IN other words, in ordinary sense of the term, an interlocutory or order is one which only decides a particular aspect or a particular issue or particular matter in a proceeding, suit or trial but which dose not however concludes the trial at all. This would be interpreted in its natural and logical sense having resort without to Criminal procedure Code or any other steratuce. That is to cay,if we construe interlocutory order in ordinary parlance it would indicate the attributes,mentioned above, end this is what the term interlocutory order means when used in Sec. 11 (1) of the Act. " 95. Ordinarily speaking, the expression "interlocutory" in legal parlance in understood in contradistinctions to what is styled as final. IN the course of a judicial processing before a court,for judicially determining the main dispute brought to the court for its resolution, a number of situations arise, where that court judge on disposing of ancillary disputes raised by parties to proceeding by making orders and unless the order finally disposes of a proceeding in a court, all such orders during the course of a trial would be broadly designated interlocutory' orders such interlocutory orders are steps, taken towards the final adjudication and for assisting the parties in the prosecution of their case in the pending proceeding. They regulate the procedure only and do not affect any right or liability of the parties INdia V. Gokal Chand, AIR 1967 SC 799 ). Every such interlocutory order may, for the time being, dispose of a particular point of controversy raised in proceeding, Yet Nonetheless the order would be an interlocutory order unless by such an order the controversy between the parties is finally disposed of. "