A. Dasa Kumar Vs. Smt. A. Sunanda

A. Dasa Kumar vs Smt. A. Sunanda

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Nov 09, 2000

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/443601

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/443601
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: S.R. Nayak, J.
Decided On: Nov 09, 2000
Case Number: C.R.P. No. 993 of 2000
Subject: Family

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation...

Key legal issue: Family
Acts & sections: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 2 and 24

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

A. Dasa Kumar

Advocate P.V. Vidyasagar, Adv.

Respondent

Smt. A. Sunanda

Advocate R. Ananda Mohan Rao, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 2 and 24
Reported In: 2001(1)ALT447; II(2001)DMC229

Excerpt

.....schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as..........day i.e., on 21.12.1999. the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is ex facie one without jurisdiction on the very touchstone of the finding recorded by the learned judge himself in the o.p. that hindu marriage act is not attracted by force of provisions of section 2(i)(a) of the act. it is true that section 24 of the act enables the court to grant interim maintenance if it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding. but it is trite to state that this power could be exercised by the court only in a proceeding maintainable under the act. this legislative intendment is writ large in section 24 of the act itself section 24 begins with the words 'where in any proceeding under this act'. the learned judge having held that o.p. which is undoubtedly a proceeding filed by the husband under the provisions of the act is not maintainable, ex facie committed an apparent illegality in ordering the application even if one goes by his own finding.3. on that short ground, c.r.p. is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. i.a. no. 1 of 1999 is dismissed. no costs. however, this order shall not come in the way of the respondent/wife seeking maintenance in accordance with appropriate law applicable to the parties before, the appropriate court, or the forum.

Full Judgment

ORDER

S.R. Nayak, J.

1. Heard. Perused the order under revision.

2. By the order under revision passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, LA. No. 1 of 1999 filed by the respondent/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') for interim maintenance pending disposal of the O.P. and to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses is partly allowed and the petitioner/husband is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/ - per month to the respondent /wife for maintaining herself and her children from the date of petition, and to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent/wife towards litigation expenses. O.P. No. 63 of 1994 was filed by the petitioner/husband, wherein he prayed for decree of divorce against the respondent/wife on the ground of cruelty. The learned Judge by his judgment and order dated 21.12.1999 dismissed the O.P. on the ground of non-maintainability after having come to the conclusion that the petitioner/husband is a Christian and he married the respondent/wife in a Church and, therefore, the Hindu Marriage Act is not applicable to the parties in view of the provisions of Section 2(i)(a) of the Act. It is stated that the said order made by the learned Judge in O.P. No. 63 of 1994 is not assailed by the petitioner/ husband, and it has become final. The impugned order is also made on the same day i.e., on 21.12.1999. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is ex facie one without jurisdiction on the very touchstone of the finding recorded by the learned Judge himself in the O.P. that Hindu Marriage Act is not attracted by force of provisions of Section 2(i)(a) of the Act. It is true that Section 24 of the Act enables the Court to grant interim maintenance if it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding. But it is trite to state that this power could be exercised by the Court only in a proceeding maintainable under the Act. This legislative intendment is writ large in Section 24 of the Act itself Section 24 begins with the words 'Where in any proceeding under this Act'. The learned Judge having held that O.P. which is undoubtedly a proceeding filed by the husband under the provisions of the Act is not maintainable, ex facie committed an apparent illegality in ordering the application even if one goes by his own finding.

3. On that short ground, C.R.P. is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. I.A. No. 1 of 1999 is dismissed. No costs. However, this order shall not come in the way of the respondent/wife seeking maintenance in accordance with appropriate law applicable to the parties before, the appropriate Court, or the Forum.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 2000 Same Parties A. Dasa Kumar vs Smt. A. Sunanda Same Subject Family Same Judge S.R. Nayak, J. Acts & Sections Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 2 and 24

Family