SARDAR PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. AMARJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the husband Sardar Paramjit Singh against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Dhanbad on 2nd September. 1999 in Title (Matrimonial) Suit No. 289 of 1995 dismissing the plaintiff-appellant's suit being a suit under Section 13(1), (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act")

(2.) As will appear from the records, a petition was filed by the respondent-wife in the suit under Section 24 of the Act, and the Family Court, after hearing the parties, passed the order on 7th February, 1998 directing the appellant-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month as alimony pendente lite for maintenance of the respondent- wife and her child. The said order was challenged by the husband in a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 466 of 1998 (R) and the same was disposed of on 29th October, 1998 by reducing the amount of maintenance pendente lite from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 4,000/. As indicated hereinabove, the suit was disposed of by the Family Court in terms of the judgment dated 2nd September, 1999, dismissing the suit for divorce. While the instant appeal was pending, the respondent- wife entered appearance and filed another application under Section 24 of the Act on 20th February, 2001, claiming alimony pendente lite and the same was placed for hearing before this Court on 22nd March, 2001. It appears that the said application had certain material defects and was allowed to be withdrawn with leave to file a fresh application for the same cause of action and pursuant thereto, another application under Section 24 of the said Act was filed on 15th January, 2002 and was taken up for consideration on 19th March, 2002. After considering the submissions made, the appeal Court was of the view that the maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month by way of alimony pendente lite was justified and reasonable and directed that such maintenance should be paid to the respondent at least from 20th February, 2001 when she appeared in the appeal and filed an application for such maintenance. The respondent's application was, therefore, allowed with a direction upon the appellant to pay the entire arrears of maintenance with effect from March, 2001 in three instalments. The appellant was directed to go on paying the maintenance every month till the disposal of the appeal.

(3.) Subsequently the appeal was mentioned on behalf of the appellant for leave to withdraw the same. On 15th April, 2002, this Court took note of the fact that prima facie it appeared that the intention of the appellant was to frustrate the order that was passed on 19th March, 2002. Accordingly, the appellant was given leave to file regular application for leave to withdraw the appeal after complying with the order passed on 19th March, 2002.