Full Judgment
Amar Dutt, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25th July, 1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar by which he adjourned the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the 'Act') for dissolution of the marriage of the petitioner with Kusum Sharma sine die.
2. The circumstances in which the impugned order was passed are not in dispute. In a previous litigation between the parties which started on 18th July, 1985 a petition of Surjit Kumar petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed by the Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Jalandhar on 23rd December, 1992 and against this judgment and decree First Appeal from Order No. 25/M of 1994 was filed. Since the operation of the decree was not stayed by this Court at the time of admission, Surjit Kumar moved a petition under Section 13 of the Act on 24th January, 1994 for the grant of decree of divorce as the decree for restitution of conjugal rights had not been complied with. In the petition for divorce, the parties concluded their evidence on 23rd February, 1998 and thereafter the case was fixed for arguments. It remained listed for arguments till 13th May, 1998 and was listed for orders on 15th May, 1998. On that date, the Court again reopened the arguments and adjourned the case for 22nd May, 1998 for obtaining assistance regarding the effect of the pendency of the First Appeal from Order in the case under Section 9 of the Act. On 22nd May, 1998, again the arguments were not concluded, instead the impugned order was passed.
3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of First Appeal from Order No. 25-M of 1994.
4. It is clear from the perusal of the records of First Appeal from Order No. 25-M of 1994 that in the said appeal, the operation of the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Jalandhar was not stayed during the pendency of the appeal. As a matter of fact, when the appeal came up for hearing for the first time, the period of over one year had elapsed after the passing of the decree and, therefore, a right had already vested in the parties to the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act for dissolution of their marriage. Once a right to move the Court had accrued to the petitioner, then it has to be adjudicated upon de hors the pendency of appeal against the judgment and decree passed in proceedings under Section 9 of the Act. The mere fact that respondent had preferred an appeal would not by itself result in staying the operation of the impugned order and in fact it is on record that the prayer for stay of proceedings under Section 13 of the Act had specifically been denied. In view of this, the Court below had acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction when it adjourned the petition under Section 13 of the Act sine die to await the decision of the First Appeal from Order. This order has to be set aside and the Additional District Judge directed to dispose of the proceedings within a period of 30 days as from the record it appears that the stipulations contained in the Civil Procedure Code as well as in the High Court Rules and Order regarding disposal of such proceedings within 30 days of conclusion of evidence, had not been complied with in this case.
5. For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
6. Registry is directed to list the First Appeal from Order 25-M of 1994 for final hearing in the month of October, 1999, high up in the list.