JUDGMENT - C.S. DHARMADHIKARI, J.:---The respondent No. 2 Bhanumati filed a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for divorce. She also took out a notice of motion bearing No. 4551 of 1981 for interim alimony under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It appears that initially the said notice of motion came to be decided ex parte. However, the said ex parte order was set aside and ultimately after hearing both sides the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay by his order dated 20th January, 1982 made the notice of motion absolute and granted Rs. 150/- per month as interim maintenance to the petitioner-wife from 1st October, 1981. He also granted Rs. 500/- towards expenses. It is this order of the City Civil Court, Bombay which is challenged in this writ petition.

2. Shri Vyas the learned Counsel appearing for the original respondent-husband contended before me that the order passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay is without jurisdiction since the learned Judge has failed to follow the mandatory provisions of section 23(2) and (3) of the Hindu Marriage Act. According to Shri Vyas unless this procedure was followed it was not open to the Court to proceed further in the matter and grant relief under section 24. He also contended that the attention of the Court was specifically drawn towards this provision of the Act and inspite of this the learned Judge without making any efforts to bring about reconciliation has passed the order under section 24 which is wholly without jurisdiction.

3. On the other hand it is contended by Shri Vichare the learned Counsel for respondent wife that section 24 of the Act is an independent provision and is not controlled by section 23(2). In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in A.I.R. 1977 Delhi 76 (Mrs. Arti Singh v. Lt. Col. Kanwar Pal Singh)1, and A.I.R. 1977 Delhi 176 (Smt Chitra Lekha v. Ranjit Raj)2. Shri Salik the learned Assistant Government Pleader supported the contention raised by Shri Vichare and also placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in A.I.R. 1979 Bombay 264 (Smt. Gangu Pundlik Waghmare v. Pundlik Maroti Waghmare anr.)3. Section 23(2) and (3) of the Hindu Marriage Act of the Hindu Marriage Act reads as under :---

"23(2) Before proceeding to grant any relief under this Act, it shall be the duty of the Court in the first instance, in every case where it is possible so to do consistently with the nature and circumstances of the case, to make every endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between the parties;

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to any proceeding wherein relief is sought on any of the grounds specified in Clause (ii) Clause (iii) Clause (iv), Clause (v), Clause (vi) or Clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 13.

(3) For the purpose of aiding the Court in bringing about such reconciliation, the Court may, if the parties so desire or if the Court thinks it just and proper so to do, adjourn the proceedings for a reasonable period not exceeding fifteen days and refer the matter to any person named by the parties in this behalf or to any person nominated by the Court if the parties fail to name any person, with directions to report to the Court as to whether reconciliation can be and has been, effected and the Court shall in disposing of the proceeding have due regard to the report."

Then comes section 24 which deals with the maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. Section 24 reads as under :

"Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petiti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document