The court sets aside the order granting monthly maintenance to the wife due to denial of natural justice. The court also notes that the income of the husband in the United States should be considered in granting maintenance to the wife in India.

( 1 ) VIDE CRP No. 1111/2003 petitioner/husband has challenged the order dated 6. 8. 2003 passed by the learned Matrimonial Judge deciding respondent's application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, granting monthly maintenance of Rs. 11 lacs to the wife with effect from the date of her application. e. 21. 10. 2002 till date of the order dated 6. 8. 2003. I note that the period for which maintenance has been awarded is 9 months and 16 days. Litigation expenses in sum of Rs. 1 lac have been awarded in addition.

( 2 ) VIDE CRP No. 1114/2003 petitioner (husband) has challenged the order dated 21. 7. 2003 dismissing his application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC.

( 3 ) VIDE CM (M) No. 16/2005 petitioner (husband) has challenged the order dated 6. 8. 2003 passed by the learned Matrimonial Judge allowing application filed by the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

( 4 ) IT is stated in CM (M) No. 16/2005 that revision petition against the order dated 6. 8. 2003 granting interim maintenance to the wife cannot be challenged by way of a civil revision petition in view of a decision of the supreme Court reported as Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur v Swaraj developers and Ors, AIR 2003 SC 2434. Therefore remedy is being invoked under article 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 5 ) THUS, at the outset I dismiss CRP No. 1111/2003 as withdrawn.

( 6 ) FOR the sequence of events and various orders passed by the learned Matrimonial Judge, and as noted here-in-under, a fairly comical situation has come into existence.

( 7 ) THE parties got married on 24. 3. 2002. The marriage broke down in less than 5 months. Petitioner, a resident of the United States of America filed a divorce petition in the United States of America. Admittedly, he has obtained an ex-parte decree of divorce from a Court having matrimonial jurisdiction in the United States of America.

( 8 ) THE respondent was served with the notice of motion taken out by the petitioner before the Matrimonial Judge in the United States of America. She opposed grant of divorce by challenging the jurisdiction of the Courts in united States of America. But after filing the reply she absented. Thus, it resulted in the grant of an ex-parte decree for divorce in favour of the petitioner.

( 9 ) IN India, respondent sought annulment of the marriage by seeking a decree for divorce. The petition was filed within less than 1 year of the marriage. Remedy under Section 12 (1) (c) read with Section 13 of the Hindu marriage Act was invoked.

( 10 ) AS per the mandate of Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act respondent sought waiver of the statutorily prescribed period. e. 1 year with effect from the date of the marriage within which period except after obtaining from the court after showing special circumstances petition seeking annulment of the marriage could not be filed.

( 11 ) A strange thing happened before the learned Matrimonial Judge on 3. 10. 2002 when the petition seeking divorce accompanied by the application under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed.

( 12 ) 2 orders of even date were passed.

( 13 ) VIDE first order dated 3. 10. 2002 notice was issued in the petition seeking annulment of the marriage by way of decree for divorce. The notice was returnable for 2. 12. 2002.

( 14 ) A second order of even date was passed. It records as under:-

"i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the application under section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act. No valid and legal ground is made out by the petitioner for moving this application before the expiry of one year. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. "

( 15 ) IT could be argued that having dismissed the application filed by the respondent invoking Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, learned matrimonial Judge was obliged to dismiss the petition seeking divorce and therefore proceedings conducted by the learned Trial Judge thereafter are without any authority of law.

( 1