LAWS(GJH)-1991-7-54

RUPESHKUMAR MAHENDRAKUMAR MANIYAR Vs. SMT. KIRTIBEN RUPESHKUMAR MANIYAR

Decided On July 24, 1991
Rupeshkumar Mahendrakumar Maniyar Appellant
V/S
Smt. Kirtiben Rupeshkumar Maniyar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hindu Marriage Petition No. 104 of 1990 has been filed by the respondent-wife against the petitioner-husband at Bhavnagar for obtaining relief of restitution of conjugal rights. She moved therein an application u/S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', praying for interim alimony in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- for herself and Rs. 500/- for minor daughter Palak and praying for litigation expenses in the sum of Rs. 3,000/-. The learned District Judge, Bhavnagar, by his order dated 30th March 1991 awarded Rs. 1,300/- p.m. by way of interim alimony (Rs. 800/- for the wife and Rs. 500/- for the child) and Rs. 2,500/- for the cost of litigation. It is this order which has been under challenge in this revision Application.

(2.) The learned Advocate for the petitioner firstly submitted that the application for interim alimony was not maintainable as the petitioner had undergone conversion of religion. His second submission was with regard to the quantum of alimony. He also made grievance about interim maintenance of the child by submitting that it was beyond the scope of provision contained in Section 24 of the Act, but later on he conceded the point and proceeded to argue the matter with regard to quantum of maintenance.

(3.) So far as the first submission is concerned, there is no substance. The learned Advocate for the petitioner was not in a position to point out any provision which has an effect of taking away the right conferred u/S. 24 of the Act. 'As a matter of fact Section 13 clause (2) of the Act gives right to an aggrieved party to move a petition for obtaining a decree of divorce if the other party has ceased to be Hindu by virtue of conversion to another religion. In view of that provision, conversion per se does not operate as a dissolution of marriage. Apart from this aspect of the matter, there is no provision of law which takes away or abridges the right conferred u/S. 24 of the Act, on account of one of the parties to the petition, having undergone conversion. Order accordingly.