Ramesh Chand Vs. Manju Devi

Ramesh Chand vs Manju Devi

Disposition Petition allowed Court Delhi Decided Oct 08, 1993

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/700628

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/700628
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Jaspal Singh, J.
Decided On: Oct 08, 1993
Case Number: C.R. No. 183 of 1993 and C.M. No. 606 of 1993
Subject: Family
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

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

- - It is argued that the Certificate referred to in the said order having actually been issued by Madan Auto Industries on 18th November, 1992 and the same having been filed in Court only on 19th November, 1992 its reference in the order of 23rd October, 1992 is sufficient in itself to show that it suffers from u...

Key legal issue: Family
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 24

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramesh Chand

Advocate Savita Malhotra, Adv

Respondent

Manju Devi

Advocate Kirti Singh, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 24
Reported In: II(1994)DMC256

Excerpt

- - it is argued that the certificate referred to in the said order having actually been issued by madan auto industries on 18th november, 1992 and the same having been filed in court only on 19th november, 1992 its reference in the order of 23rd october, 1992 is sufficient in itself to show that it suffers from unauthorised additions made much after november 19, 1993 and in further support of the contention my attention has been drawn to the original order wherein, it is contended, the writing with respect to the document appears clearly to have been added at a later stage......of that order which was dismissed on 5th january, 1993. hence this petition.2. the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the order of october 23, 1992 and has submitted that it has been interpolated and unauthorised additions have been made in the same. her grievance is particularly directed against the reference in the order to a salary certificate issued by madan auto industries. it is argued that the certificate referred to in the said order having actually been issued by madan auto industries on 18th november, 1992 and the same having been filed in court only on 19th november, 1992 its reference in the order of 23rd october, 1992 is sufficient in itself to show that it suffers from unauthorised additions made much after november 19, 1993 and in further support of the contention my attention has been drawn to the original order wherein, it is contended, the writing with respect to the document appears clearly to have been added at a later stage. however, i need not go into this matter as the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she is only interested in getting the matter re-heard in the light of the documents filed by the petitioner on 19th november, 1992.3. on my suggestion the learned counsel for the respondent has also agreed to the grant of re-hearing of the matter by the learned trial court. her only worry, however, is that the matter may get delayed. i am sure that the learned trial court while looking into the matter afresh, shall brook no delay.4. for the reasons recorded by me above, the order dated october 23, 1992 is set aside. the learned additional district judge is directed to hear the parties on the application under section 24 and to proceed to decide the matter afresh. no order is made as to costs.

Full Judgment

Jaspal Singh, J.

1. On October 23, 1993, the learned Additional District Judge passed an order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act fixing maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month besides Rs. 1000/- towards litigation expenses. Thereafter, an application was moved for review of that order which was dismissed on 5th January, 1993. Hence this petition.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the order of October 23, 1992 and has submitted that it has been interpolated and unauthorised additions have been made in the same. Her grievance is particularly directed against the reference in the order to a salary Certificate issued by Madan Auto Industries. It is argued that the Certificate referred to in the said order having actually been issued by Madan Auto Industries on 18th November, 1992 and the same having been filed in Court only on 19th November, 1992 its reference in the order of 23rd October, 1992 is sufficient in itself to show that it suffers from unauthorised additions made much after November 19, 1993 and in further support of the contention my attention has been drawn to the original order wherein, it is contended, the writing with respect to the document appears clearly to have been added at a later stage. However, I need not go into this matter as the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that she is only interested in getting the matter re-heard in the light of the documents filed by the petitioner on 19th November, 1992.

3. On my suggestion the learned Counsel for the respondent has also agreed to the grant of re-hearing of the matter by the learned Trial Court. Her only worry, however, is that the matter may get delayed. I am sure that the learned Trial Court while looking into the matter afresh, shall brook no delay.

4. For the reasons recorded by me above, the order dated October 23, 1992 is set aside. The learned Additional District Judge is directed to hear the parties on the application under Section 24 and to proceed to decide the matter afresh. No order is made as to costs.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1993 Same Parties Ramesh Chand vs Manju Devi Same Subject Family Same Judge Jaspal Singh, J. Acts & Sections Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 24

Family