Smt. Rajinder Kaur Vs. Attinderjit Singh - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a..........the order of the trial court declining the wife's prayer for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of litigation under s. 24 of the hindu marriage act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), on the ground that the husband's petition for divorce involved 'serious allegations of gross misbehaviour and infidelity' with of course the rider 'however, if later the allegations of attinderjit singh are found to be baseless or without foundation, rajinder kaur can be compensated with costs.' this denotes a grossly misconceived and fallacious approach to the matter in issue. proceedings under s. 24 of the act provide neither the occasion nor the stage for the court to enquire into the veracity or the weight to be attached to allegations in the pleadings of the parties. indeed, to go into such allegations would clearly introduce extraneous considerations or amount to prejudging the main issue.2. as a plain reading of the provisions of s. 24 of the act would show either party, i.e. husband or the wife as the case may be, having no independent means, sufficient for its support and necessary expenses of the proceedings, may seek maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the litigation.....

Judgment:

ORDER

1. The challenge in revision here is to the order of the trial Court declining the wife's prayer for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of litigation under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on the ground that the husband's petition for divorce involved 'serious allegations of gross misbehaviour and infidelity' with of course the rider 'however, if later the allegations of Attinderjit Singh are found to be baseless or without foundation, Rajinder Kaur can be compensated with costs.' This denotes a grossly misconceived and fallacious approach to the matter in issue. Proceedings under S. 24 of the Act provide neither the occasion nor the stage for the Court to enquire into the veracity or the weight to be attached to allegations in the pleadings of the parties. Indeed, to go into such allegations would clearly introduce extraneous considerations or amount to prejudging the main issue.

2. As a plain reading of the provisions of S. 24 of the Act would show either party, i.e. husband or the wife as the case may be, having no independent means, sufficient for its support and necessary expenses of the proceedings, may seek maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the litigation thereunder. It is to these matters that the Court has to address itself when dealing with such an application.

3. The impugned order cannot, therefore, but be held to be patently unwarranted and wholly perverse. It is accordingly hereby set aside, and the wife is granted Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the litigation in this Court.

4. Interests of justice also render it incumbent that the case now be transferred to another Court for disposal. It is accordingly ordered to be transferred to the Court of Mrs. Bakshish Kaur, Additional District Judge,Amritsar and the parties are directed to appear before her on 3-4-1989.

5. Order accordingly.