SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1982 Supreme(Ori) 32

High Court Of Orissa
R. N. Misra, C. J.
PURUSOTTAM DAS AGARWALA - Appellant
Versus
PUSPA DEVI - Respondent
Civil Revn.  60  Of  1981
Decided On : 02/26/1982

Advocates Appeared:
C.V.MURTHY, R.K.PRABARAJ

Maintenance for a child is not contemplated under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Headnote:

Section 24 - Hindu Marriage Act - Interim maintenance and litigation expenses

Fact of the Case:

The husband filed a pending action under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance and litigation expenses under Section 24. The court had directed maintenance for the wife and child, along with litigation expenses.

Finding of the Court:

The court agreed with the petitioner's contention that maintenance for a child is not contemplated under Section 24 and deleted the direction for payment of maintenance to the child. The court did not interfere with the quantum of litigation expenses and directed the Subordinate Judge to dispose of the suit before the closure of the court for the long vacation.

Issues: Interim maintenance and litigation expenses under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act

Ratio Decidendi: Maintenance for a child is not within the purview of Section 24 of the Act.

Final Decision: The court deleted the direction for payment of maintenance to the child, did not interfere with the quantum of litigation expenses, and directed the Subordinate Judge to dispose of the suit before the closure of the court for the long vacation.

R. N. MISRA, C. J.

( 1 ) IN a pending action under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the husband against wife, an application under Section 24 of the Act was made asking for interim maintenance as also litigation expenses. By the impugned order dated 13-1-1981, the learned Subordinate Judge has directed that maintenance for the wife should be at the rate of Rs. 150 per month, maintenance for the child living with wife should be at the rate of Rs. 100 per month and consolidated sum of Rs. 500 could be paid as litigation expenses. Mr. Murty appearing for the petitioner contends that in an application under Section 24 of the Act, maintenance for a child is not contemplated and he also relies on the feature that the child here is said to be not born out of the wedlock, He also contends that the expense of Rs. 500 as awarded is excessive.

( 2 ) SO far as the first contention is concerned, I would agree, The award of maintenance for a child is not within the purview of Section 24 of the Act and accordingly I would delete the direction for payment of maintenance to the child. I do not propose to interfere with the quantum of litigation expenses as ordered to be paid.

( 3 ) THE suit has been pending for quite some time. The learned Subordinate Judge shall have a direction to dispose of the suit before closure of the Court for the long vacation. There shall be no direction for costs. Order accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top