The duty of the Family Court to dispose of applications for maintenance and litigation expenses under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act within the stipulated time period to provide monetary assistance to the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This petition is filed by the wife seeking to set aside the order dtd. 16/11/2019 passed in the matrimonial proceedings initiated by the respondent-husband under Sec. 13(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') in MC.No.4560/2017 passed by II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru and to direct the Family Court at Bengaluru to dispose of the application filed by the petitionerwife under Sec. 24 of the Act for maintenance and litigation expenses.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner, during the course of arguments, submits that he would not press prayer (b) made in the writ petition and the same is placed on record.

3. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the wife of the respondent, their marriage having solemnized on 17/3/2006, due to the misunderstanding, differences have cropped up between the couple, a divorce petition came to be filed by the respondent-husband before the Family Court at Bengaluru in MC.No.4560/2017.

4. On appearance, the petitioner filed an application under Sec. 24 of the Act on 30/10/2018 before the Family Court seeking to grant an interim maintenance of Rs.1, 50, 000.00 per month to herself and her son Advik from July, 2017 and also to pay the litigation expenses of Rs.1, 00, 000.00. Pursuant to filing of the said application by the petitioner-wife, the matter was adjourned to file objections and thereafter, objections to the said application was not filed and the same was taken as not filed by the Family Court and posted the matter for hearing on the said application, during which time i.e. on 14/3/2019, the respondent-husband filed an application to recall the order and permit him to file objections to the said application and the same was allowed by the Family Court and objections to IA was accepted by the Family Court.

5. On 24/6/2019, the petitioner's counsel submitted his arguments on the application under Sec. 24 of the Act and the matter was posted to hear the arguments of the respondent-husband, as no arguments were addressed by the respondent-husband and the matter was posted for evidence. On 20/7/2019, the respondent filed his evidence by way of affidavit and the same was accepted by the Family Court and the matter was adjourned thereafter for cross-examination of PW.1 therein.

6. This being the state of affairs, the petitioner-wife filed an application seeking permission to file objections to the main petition and accordingly, the same was filed and accepted by the Family Court. Thereafter, the petitioner-wife filed another application before the Family Court at Bengaluru praying to consider and dispose of the application filed by the petitionerwife under Sec. 24 of the Act before proceeding further in the matter.

7. Despite the said application being filed to consider and dispose of the application under Sec. 24 of the Act, the learned Family Judge has disallowed the application vide order dtd. 16/11/2019 stating that 'However, it is noticed that there is no any provision under law that IA U/s.24 of Hindu Marriage Act has to be disposed off before proceeding further, which was filed on 30/10/2018'. Pursuant to this order, a memo came to filed by the petitioner to dispose of IA.No.7 intending to challenge the order dtd. 16/11/2019 before the Family Court and same also came to be rejected and thereafter, the evidence of the petitioner-wife herein/respondent therein came to be taken as 'Nil' and the matter was posted for arguments on the main. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

8. By virtue of an interim order, stay of proceedings has been granted by this Court and nothing is proceeded thereafter.

9. The factual aspects of the matter, which are discussed above are not disputed by both learned counsel. Learned counsel for respondent contends that if the petitioner had filed statement of objections earlier and argued the matter and cross-examine PW.1 on 20/7/2019 or thereafter, he could have still continued with his arguments on the