S.K. MAL LODHA, J.—This revision, under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the husband-petitioner Bhanwarlal is directed against the order dated May 25, 1981 of the District Judge, Pali, by which, he directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 400/- per month as interim maintenance from the dated of the application i.e. December 21, 1979 to the Wife-non-petitioner Smt. Kamla Devi.

2. The husband-petitioner filed a petition under s.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (No XXV of 1955) (for short the Act herein). During the pendency of the petition, an application under s. 24 of the Act was filed. The application was resisted. The learned District Judge, by his order dated May 25, 1981 directed the petitioner for payment of interim maintenance as aforesaid. Hence this revision by the petitioner.

3. I have heard Mr.. D. L. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. R. Singhi, learned counsel for the non-petitioner.

4. The principal contention raised by Mr. D. L Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the husband-petitioner submitted an application to the District Judge for permission to cross-examine the deponents of the affidavits filed on behalf of the non-petitioner. The learned District Judge did not accede to the request made by the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the learned District Judge has committed an illegality or at any rate a material irregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction in not permitting the cross examination of the deponents of the affidavits which were filed in support of the application under s. 24 of the Act and that this has affected the decision of the application under s. 24 of the Act on merits. In support of his submission, he referred to r. 801 N of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), which reads as under:

"801 N. Mode of taking evidence:—The witnesses in all proceedings before the Court, where their attendance can be had, shall be examined orally, and any party may offer himself or herself as a witness, and shall be examined, and may be cross-examined and re examined like any other witness ;

Provided that the parties shall be at liberty to verify the respective cases in whole or in part by affidavit, but so that the deponent in every such affidavit, shall on the application of the opposite party, or by direction of the Court be subject to be cross-examined, by or on behalf of the opposite party orally, and af»er such cross-examination may be re-examined orally as aforesaid by or on behalf of the party by whom such affidavit was filed."

In view of the proviso to r. 801 N. of the Rules, the petitioner could file an application for permission to cross-examine the deponents of the affidavits, which were filed in support of the application under s. 24 of the Act. S. 21 of the Act reads as follows:-

"21. Application of Act V of 1908—

Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act and to such rules as the High Court may make in this behalf, all proceedings under this Act shall be regulated, as far as may be, by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908." According to this section subject to the provisions of the Act and the rules made by the High Court, all proceedings under the Act are to be regulated as far as may be by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. O. XIX. r. 2 C. P. C. reads as under:

"2. Power to order attendance of deponents for cross-examination:-(l) Upon any application evidence may be given by affidavit, but the Court may, at the instance of either party, order the attendance for cross-examination of the deponent.

(2) Such attendance shall be in Court, unless the deponent is exempted from personal appearance in Court, or the Court otherwise directs."

O. XIX, r. 2 C.P.C. is confined to applications. The fact or facts contained in the application can be proved by affidavits. It is discretionary to order for attendance for cross-examination of the deponents. The non-petitioner submitted an application under s. 24 of the Act for grant of interim

Click Here to Read the rest of this document