SHRIDHAR BANDARU Vs. VIJAYA KRISHNAMURTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the order dated 14.5.2015 passed by the 3rd Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Bhopal deciding the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner seeking recall of the order dated 24.10.2013 in the pending Civil Suit No.210A/2013, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner.

(2.) The facts leading to file the present petition are that the suit filed by the petitioner/husband for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act is pending in the Court. On 26.6.2013, the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was decided vide order dated 24.10.2013 by 8th Additional District Judge, Bhopal granting maintenance to the wife to the tune of Rs.3500 per month, Rs.2000/- for attending the case per hearing and Rs.5000/- one time litigation expenses. The said order was challenged by filing Civil Revision No.496/2013 in which vide order dated 18.12.2013, the operation of order granting interim maintenance was stayed subject to payment of interim maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month to the wife and Rs.1000/- as expenses for attending the court proceedings. On 24.11.2014, the petitioner prayed for withdrawal of the said civil revision seeking liberty to file appropriate application for recall of the impugned order along with the documents of service of the respondent. By granting such liberty, the said civil revision was dismissed as withdrawn and thereafter the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of CPC on 19.12.2014, which was decided by the order impugned dated 14.5.2015 directing to pay interim maintenance Rs.2000/- per month to the wife and Rs.1000/- as expenses for attending the court proceedings and being aggrieved by the said order, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred.

(3.) The petitioner in person placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Anu Kaul v. Rajeev Kaul,2009 AIROnlineSC 121 decided on 23rd March 2009 as well as the judgments of the various High Courts in the cases of Damanreet Kaur v. Indermeet Juneja and another,2013 2 ADR 311 decided on 14th May,2012, Dr.E.Shanthi v. Dr.H.K.Vasudev, 2005 AIR(Kar) 417 decided on 22nd August, 2005 ; Kuldip Kaur alias Charanjit Kaur v. Karam Singh, 2000 125 PunLR 484 decided on 7th October, 1999 Smt. Kanchan w/o Kamalendra v. Kamalendra alias Kamalakar, 1992 AIR(Bom) 493 decided on 12th February, 1992 Govind Singh v. Smt.Vidya, 1999 AIR(Raj) 304 decided on 21th April, 1999. Smt.Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal, 2000 3 MPLJ 100 and urged that looking to the language of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the maintenance pendente lite can be awarded when either the husband or wife has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and also necessary expenses. As the wife is earning having employed herself then grant of interim maintenance is not justifiable, therefore, the order dated 24.10.2013 passed by the Trial Court may be recalled.