Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. N. MUKHERJEE, A. K. DUTTA
LATIKA GHOSH - Appellant
Versus
NIRMAL KUMAR GHOSH - Respondent
Civil Revn. Case 1427 Of 1967
Decided On : JULY 12, 1967
Alimony - Matrimonial Suit - The court set aside the orders of the trial judge, ruling that it is not permissible to impose a condition on an applicant for alimony to file a written statement before the alimony matter is heard. The court also found the second order unjust in fixing the suit for ex parte hearing after rejecting the petitioner's prayer for time to file the written statement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought judicial separation and alimony pendente lite. The trial judge directed the petitioner to file a written statement before the alimony matter was heard and rejected the petitioner's prayer for time to file the written statement, fixing a date for ex parte hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the orders of the trial judge to be wrong and unjust, setting them aside and sending the case back for the petitioner's alimony application to be heard and disposed of quickly.
Issues: Imposition of condition on alimony applicant, rejection of prayer for time to file written statement, ex parte hearing
Ratio Decidendi: It is not permissible to impose a condition on an applicant for alimony to file a written statement before the alimony matter is heard. Fixing a suit for ex parte hearing after rejecting the petitioner's prayer for time to file the written statement is unjust.
Final Decision: The court made the Rule absolute, set aside the impugned orders, and sent the case back to the trial judge for the alimony application to be heard and disposed of quickly.
( 2 ) IN our view, this Rule must be made absolute and the impugned orders must be set aside. It is not open to the learned Judge under the statute, as it stands, or, under the relevant law, to impose a condition on an applicant for alimony that her said application will not be heard unless she files her written statement. The statute nowhere permits auch a course, which would be opposed to the equities of the instant case, and. accordingly the first of the above two orders of the learned trial Judge is wrong and must be set aside.
( 3 ) THE second order seems to be a dependent order and further, on the face of it, it is unjust, when it fixes the suit for ex parte hearing after rejection of the petitioner's prayer for time to file the written statement in the circumstances of this case We would, accordingly, set aside that order too.
( 4 ) THE Rule will, accordingly, be made absolute as above, the Impugned orders will be set aside and the case will be sent back to the learned trial Judge so that the petitioner's application for alimony pendente lite may be heard out and disposed of as quickly as possible after giving due opportunities to the opposite party to file his objection thereto. The petitioner will file his written statement, if any, after the above disposal.
( 5 ) THERE will be no order for costs in this Rule. Let the records go down quickly as possible.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
