Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ram NaraIn Vs. Dropadi Devi

Ram Narain vs Dropadi Devi

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Aug 30, 1982
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/689008

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
First Appeal No. 135 of 1981
Subject
Family

Case Summary

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

Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 24 ;The order directing the appellant to pay litigation expenses and maintenance to the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the act is in the nature of a step for the prosecution of the appeal. As the appellant has not complied with the said order, the appellant cannot be he...

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

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Narain

Advocate B.S. Singh, Adv

Respondent

Dropadi Devi

Legal References

Acts
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 24
Reported In
AIR1983Delhi346; 1983(4)DRJ79; 1983RLR4

Excerpt

hindu marriage act 1955 - section 24 ;the order directing the appellant to pay litigation expenses and maintenance to the respondent-wife under section 24 of the act is in the nature of a step for the prosecution of the appeal. as the appellant has not complied with the said order, the appellant cannot be heard in support of his appeal. - - various opportunities were granted to the appellant to pay the litigation expenses and maintenance but he failed. failure to cornply with order under section 24 of the act is intentional.sultan singh, j.(1) the appellant-husband filed a petitioner under section 13(l)(i) of the hindu marriage act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') on the ground that his wife-respondent no. 1 had been living in adultery with respondent no. 2. his petition was dismissed by the additional district judge on 31st january, 1981. hence he filed this first appeal under section 28 of the act the wife filed an application (c.m. no. 3304 of 1981) for maintenance and litigation expenses for this appeal. by order dated 1st february, 1982 the appellant was directed to pay rs 500.00 as litigation expenses besides maintenance for the respondent and their five children at rs.. 450.00 per month. various opportunities were granted to the appellant to pay the litigation expenses and maintenance but he failed. the appellant is represented by a counsel. the respondent wife is not in a position to engage a counsel unless litigation expenses are paid. failure to cornply with order under section 24 of the act is intentional. if the appellant does not pay litigation expenses and maintenance to the respondent his appeal cannot be heard. it would be an injustice to the respondent if the appeal is heard in the absence of a counsel for her. the order directing the appellant to pay litigation expenses and maintenance to the respondent-wife under section 24 of the act is in the nature of a step for the prosecution of the appeal. as the appellant has not complied with the said order, the appellant cannot be heard in support of his appeal. the appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs

Full Judgment

Sultan Singh, J.

(1) The appellant-husband filed a petitioner under Section 13(l)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') on the ground that his wife-respondent No. 1 had been living in adultery with respondent No. 2. His petition was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 31st January, 1981. Hence he filed this first appeal under Section 28 of the Act The wife filed an application (C.M. No. 3304 of 1981) for maintenance and litigation expenses for this appeal. By order dated 1st February, 1982 the appellant was directed to pay Rs 500.00 as litigation expenses besides maintenance for the respondent and their five children at Rs.. 450.00 per month. Various opportunities were granted to the appellant to pay the litigation expenses and maintenance but he failed. The appellant is represented by a counsel. The respondent wife is not in a position to engage a counsel unless litigation expenses are paid. Failure to cornply with order under Section 24 of the Act is intentional. If the appellant does not pay litigation expenses and maintenance to the respondent his appeal cannot be heard. It would be an injustice to the respondent if the appeal is heard in the absence of a counsel for her. The order directing the appellant to pay litigation expenses and maintenance to the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Act is in the nature of a step for the prosecution of the appeal. As the appellant has not complied with the said order, the appellant cannot be heard in support of his appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial