HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
G. K. Misra, J.
GANGA DEVI - Appellant
Versus
KRUSHNA PRASAD SHARMA - Respondent
Civil Revn. 66 Of 1964
Decided On : OCTOBER 22, 1964
Interrogatories - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 24 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 13, Section 24, Section 21, Section 141, Code of Civil Procedure - The court discussed the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which provides for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. It also analyzed the applicability of Section 21 and Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the interlocutory proceeding under Section 24 of the Act. The court emphasized the need for the petitioner to establish various ingredients for the application under Section 24 and interpreted the scope of Order 11, Rule 6, C. P. C. in allowing interrogatories.
Fact of the Case:
The husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and the wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act for maintenance pendente lite. The defendant sought to serve interrogatories on the plaintiff, which was rejected by the district judge. The civil revision was filed against this order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application under Section 24 of the Act starts a proceeding under the Act and discussed the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure to the interlocutory proceeding. It held that the district judge failed to exercise jurisdiction by rejecting the application for interrogatories and allowed the application.
Issues: The issues involved the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure to the interlocutory proceeding under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the rejection of the application for interrogatories by the district judge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 24 of the Act, the applicability of Section 21 and Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the scope of allowing interrogatories under Order 11, Rule 6, C. P. C.
Final Decision: The order of the district judge was set aside, and the civil revision was allowed with costs. The plaintiff was directed to answer the interrogatories, and the district judge was directed to dispose of the proceeding under Section 24 as quickly as possible.
G. K. MISRA, J.
( 1 ) PLAINTIFF opposite party (husband) filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), with a prayer to dissolve the marriage between himself and the defendant petitioner (wife) by a decree of divorce, on grounds of her unsound mind and bad character. After filing the written statement, the defendant filed an application under Section 24 of the Act asking for maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 1000 per month, arrears of maintenance at Rs. 16,000 and Rs. 5000 towards expenses of the proceedings. She averred that she had no independent income to maintain herself and to meet the expenses of the suit filed against her. She alleged that the plaintiff is a rich business man having considerable immovable properties in lands and houses and that he possesses business of jewellery, spices and cosmetics etc. She estimated the average income of the plaintiff at Rs. 10,000 per month. The plaintiff challenged the aforesaid averments as untrue and asserted that his monthly income did not exceed Rs. 100 and that the defendant could maintain herself with a sum of Rs. 15 per month without assistance as she had her own independent means. Defendant filed certain interrogatories a copy of which was served on the plaintiff who filed an objection thereto. By his order dated 22-1-64 the learned district Judge rejected defendant's application for interrogatories. The Civil revision is against this order.
( 2 ) THE order of the learned District Judge is cryptic, and to appreciate the contentions, the entire order may be quoted-"these interrogatories are meant to be served on the plaintiff in an enquiry on the defendants petition filed under Section 24 of the Hindu marriage Act for maintenance. Order 11, Rule 1, C. P. C. applies only to suits and not to any interlocutory proceedings. So this application seems to be not maintainable. Also the interrogatories sought to be served appear to be in the nature of fishing out the evidence which the plaintiff may adduce in the matter. The purpose of interrogatories is to discover the nature of the case as distinct from the evidence. So even on merits. I do not think that the petition can be entertained. "
( 3 ) MR. Mohapatra in support of the order of the learned District Judge advanced the following contentions:
(i) The application calling upon the plain tiff to answer the interrogatories is in relation to the application under Section 24 of the act, which is an interlocutory matter arising out of the suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Act. Section 21 of the Act docs not override section 141, C. P. C. ami Order 11, C. P. C. has no application to the interlocutory proceeding under Section 24 of the Act. (ii) The interrogatories purport to evidence wherewith the plaintiff intends to support his case at the trial and are fishing in nature: and (iii) Section 115, C. P. C. is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.
( 4 ) SECTION 21 of the Act lays down that subject to other provisions contained in this Act and to such rules as the High Court make in this behalf, all proceedings under this Act shall be regulated, as far as may be, by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 24 of the Act makes provisions for maintenance pendente life and expenses of proceedings. It enacts:
"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 in dependent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or 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 petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the Court to be reasonable. " thus in a proceeding for divorce, the section makes provisions for grant of interim maintenance and expenses of the p
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.