High Court Of Orissa
B. N. Misra, J.
BABY SAGARIKA JENA (ROSY) - Appellant
Versus
BISHNU CHARAN JENA - Respondent
Misc. Appeal 122 Of 1982
Decided On : 01/16/1984
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 26 - MAINTENANCE AND EDUCATION OF CHILDREN - JURISDICTION OF COURT - APPEAL - VALUATION OF SUIT - COURT FEES ACT, 1870 - SECTION 7(II) - HINDU MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE RULES, 1956 - RULE 3(A) - BENGAL, AGRA AND ASSAM CIVIL COURTS ACT, 1887 - SECTION 21(1).
Fact of the Case:
The appellants' mother filed a petition under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking maintenance and education expenses for her two minor children after a decree of divorce was granted to her and the respondent by mutual consent. The respondent challenged the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the court became functus officio after the divorce decree and had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The court fixed a sum of Rs. 250 per month for each child's maintenance and education.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petition under Section 26 of the Act was maintainable as the court's jurisdiction to pass orders with respect to the custody, maintenance, and education of minor children continues even after the main proceeding initiated under the Act has come to an end. However, the court found that the appeal against the impugned order passed under Section 26 of the Act by the learned Subordinate Judge after the decree for divorce was granted did not lie to the High Court but to the court of the District Judge, as the valuation of the main proceeding was Rs. 250, which governed the valuation of the petition under Section 26 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the petition under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was maintainable after the decree of divorce was granted. 2. Whether the appeal against the order passed under Section 26 of the Act lay to the High Court or to the court of the District Judge.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petition under Section 26 of the Act was maintainable as the court's jurisdiction to pass orders with respect to the custody, maintenance, and education of minor children continues even after the main proceeding initiated under the Act has come to an end. 2. The court held that the appeal against the order passed under Section 26 of the Act did not lie to the High Court but to the court of the District Judge, as the valuation of the main proceeding was Rs. 250, which governed the valuation of the petition under Section 26 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court held that the appeal lay to the court of the District Judge and not to the High Court. The memorandum of appeal and the cross-objection were returned to the parties for presentation to the proper court.
B. N. MISRA, J.
( 1 ) THIS appeal filed by the mother of the two minor appellants is directed against the order dated 12-2-1982 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge. First Court, Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 23 of 1980 fixing a sum of Rs. 250 per month in respect of each appellant as maintenance and education expenses and directing the respondent, father of the two minor appellants, to spend the aforesaid amount towards the maintenance and education of the appellants.
( 2 ) THE facts of the case may be briefly noted. The respondent and the mother of the appellants were married according to Hindu Vedic rites at village Mallikapur, district Cuttack on 13-6-1974 Out of this wedlock, the two appellants were born. As the marriage did not prove 'successful', the respondent and his wife lived separately for more than a year. Thereafter, on 23-3-1979 they filed a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') praying for a decree of divorce by mutual consent. This petition was registered as O. S. No. 16 of 1979. The decree for divorce was granted by the court by order dated 18-10-1979. Admittedly, the two minor appellants have been living with their mother. On 18-1-1980, the mother filed an application under Section 26 of the Act claiming maintenance and education expenses in respect of the two minor appellants. This application, filed after the decree of divorce, was registered as Misc. Case No. 23 of 1980. According to this application appellant No. 1 was born on 5-51976 and appellant No. 2 was born on 22-12-1978 out of the wedlock between the mother and the respondent and they are in the custody of the mother under her guardianship. The respondent, a Major in the Indian Army, draws, monthly emoluments of Rs. 3,000 approximately. The mother has only four acres of agricultural land in village Panikolli. The income from the agricultural land is just sufficient for her bare maintenance. On account of differences between the parents a decree of divorce by mutual consent was granted by the court by order dated 18-10-1979 and in the said decree no provision has been made for the maintenance and education of the appellants. It is further stated that each applicant would require approximately Rs. 3,000 per year towards maintenance and education expenses. The applicants have accordingly prayed that necessary provision be made by the court with respect to their maintenance and education.
( 3 ) IN his objection, the respondent has challenged the maintainability of the application under Section 26 of the Act. It is stated that after the decree of divorce was granted to the parties, the court became functus officio and had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. It is admitted that the two appellants were born on the dates mentioned in the application filed by the appellants. It is stated that the mother has no authority under law to keen the minor children in her custody and that the interests of the minors shall be at jeopardy if the children remain with the mother. A competent court of law has already directed that the children shall remain with the respondent. The amount claimed as maintenance is stated to be high and excessive. The respondent has finally prayed that the petition filed by the mother on behalf of the children should be dismissed as he is ready and willing to take care of and look after the children.
( 4 ) UPON consideration of the respective cases of the parties, the learned Subordinate Judge passed the impugned order. The operative part of the order is extracted hereunder:
"that the Misc. Case is allowed on contest without costs. A sum of Rs. 250 per month is hereby fixed towards maintenance and education of each minor children petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and opposite party is hereby directed to spend the aforesaid amount towards the maintenance and education of the petitioners This will take effect from the date of this order. "
This order of the learned Subordi
AI
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.