Jai Shanker Vs. Chandresh

Jai Shanker vs Chandresh

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Mar 05, 1980

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/758731

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/758731
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: C.M. Lodha, C.J. and; Kanta Bhatnagar, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 05, 1980
Case Number: D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 4 of 1979
Subject: Family

Case Summary

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

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 24--Object of--Appellant not complying Court's order regarding payment of incidental expenses & lawyer's fee--Stay of appeal not to serve purpose--One more opportunity given on pain of dismissal of appeal if order mot complied.;No useful purpose will be served by directing stay...

Key legal issue: Family

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jai Shanker

Respondent

Chandresh

Legal References

Cases Referred: Shri Ram Swaroop v. Janak and Jaisingh
Reported In: 1980WLN(UC)82

Excerpt

.....given on pain of dismissal of appeal if order mot complied.;no useful purpose will be served by directing stay of hearing of the appeal on the ground of non compliance with the order of this court. the intention of the legislature behind enacting section 24 is clear and it is this that if one of the spouses deserves to be awarded necessary expenses for defending a matrimonial matter the court should make as order to that effect so that the effected spouse may plead its case effectively. we are consequently of opinion that the only just and proper course would be to grant ore more opportunity to the appellant in the interest of justice to comply with the order of this court and make it the last opportunity on the pain of dismissal of the appeal in case the order is not complied with.;order accordingly - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - it is urged that..........to the respondent, and looking to the attitude of the appellant an order of stay would only result in prolonging the matter indefinitely. it is urged that in order to prevent abuse of the process of the court, in a matter like this, the proper course would be to dismiss the appeal. in support of his contention he has relied upon shri ram swaroop v. janak and jaisingh v. khimi bhiklu air 1978 himachal pradesh 45.4. having regard to the circumstances of the case weare inclined to think that no useful purpose will be served by directing stay of hearing of the appeal on the ground of non compliance with the order of this court. the intention of the legislature behind enacting section 24 is clear and it is this that if one of the spouses deserves to be awarded necessary expenses for defending a matrimonial matter the court should make an order to that effect so that the effected spouse may plead its case effectively. we are consequently of opinion that the only just and proper course would be to grant one more opportunity to the appellant in the interest of justice to comply with the order of this court and make it the last opportunity on the pain of dismissal of the appeal in case the order is not complied who.5. accordingly we hereby direct that the appellant shall deposit in court or pay to the respondent against her receipt a sum of rs. 450/- (rupees four hundred fifty) as ordered by this court on november 6, 1979 on or before tuesday, the 15th april, 1980 failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed.6. put up the case on april 15, 1980.

Full Judgment

C.M. Lodha, C.J.

1. The appellant was directed by this court on November 6, 1979 to pay to the respondent Rs. 330/- as lawyer's fee for opposing the appeal and Rs. 120/- as incidental expenses, total Rs. 450/- and one month's time was granted to the appellant for making the payment. The aforesaid amount has not been paid chough the case was adjourned more than once to enable the appellant to comply with the aforesaid order of the court.

2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal may be heard and the respondent may be directed to take out execution of the order of this court regarding grant of expenses In the alternative it is submitted that further proceedings in the appeal may be ordered to be stayed till the order is complied with. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on Malkan Rani v. Krishan Kumar , Smt. Anita v. Birendra Chandra : AIR1962 Cal88 , Ram Chandra Rao v. Kowsalya AIR 1969 Mysore 76 and Anuradha v. Santosh Nath AIR 1976 Delhi, 246.

3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has urged that the appellant is not entitled to be heard in support of his appeal, when he is wilfully and deliberately flouting the order of this court dated November 6, 1979 directing payment of Rs. 510/- to the respondent. He has also submitted that stay of appeal would only result in prolonged agony to the respondent, and looking to the attitude of the appellant an order of stay would only result in prolonging the matter indefinitely. It is urged that in order to prevent abuse of the process of the court, in a matter like this, the proper course would be to dismiss the appeal. In support of his contention he has relied upon Shri Ram Swaroop v. Janak and Jaisingh v. Khimi Bhiklu AIR 1978 Himachal Pradesh 45.

4. Having regard to the circumstances of the case weare inclined to think that no useful purpose will be served by directing stay of hearing of the appeal on the ground of non compliance with the order of this Court. The intention of the Legislature behind enacting Section 24 is clear and it is this that if one of the spouses deserves to be awarded necessary expenses for defending a matrimonial matter the court should make an order to that effect so that the effected spouse may plead its case effectively. We are consequently of opinion that the only just and proper course would be to grant one more opportunity to the appellant in the interest of justice to comply with the order of this court and make it the last opportunity on the pain of dismissal of the appeal in case the order is not complied who.

5. Accordingly we hereby direct that the appellant shall deposit in court or pay to the respondent against her receipt a sum of Rs. 450/- (Rupees Four Hundred Fifty) as ordered by this court on November 6, 1979 on or before Tuesday, the 15th April, 1980 failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed.

6. Put up the case on April 15, 1980.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1980 Same Parties Jai Shanker vs Chandresh Same Subject Family Same Judge C.M. Lodha, C.J. and; Kanta Bhatnagar, JJ.

Family