Decided on May 23,1961



- (1.) IN May, 1960, Birendra Chandra Karmokar, the Opposite party, filed an application, under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for restitution of his conjugal rights with the petitioner No. 1 and for injunction against petitioner No. 2, the mother of petitioner No. 1, restraining her from interfering therewith or standing in the way thereof. The said application was registered as Matrimonial Suit No. 93 of 1960 5 of 1960. The petitioners filed a joint written statement objecting to the prayer for restitution of conjugal rights, inter alia, on the plea of cruelty, to the petitioner No. 1, by the opposite party and the members of his family.
(2.) ON August 18, 1960. the petitioner No. 1 filed an application in the aforesaid suit, under section 24 of the Act, asking for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceeding. The Court below, on being satisfied that the wife petitioner No. 1 had no independent income sufficient for her support and for defraying the necessary expenses of the proceeding, passed an order, dated December 17, 1960, directing the opposite party to pay to the petitioner No. 1, as maintenance pendente lite, a sum of Rs. 31/-per month, with effect from June, 1960 and a further sum of Rs. 200/- as expenses of the proceeding. The amounts aforementioned were directed to be paid to the petitioner No. 1 by the end of January, 1961. The opposite party did not pay the aforesaid sums of money to the petitioner No. 1 nor any part thereof.
(3.) THEREUPON, on March 3, 1961, the petitioner No. 1 applied for stay of the matrimonial suit until payment. The Court below rejected the application with the following observations:- "it appears that the respondent has engaged her lawyer to press the petition for stay, but she is not herself present. I think that she could have examined herself in defense. So I think that in this case the proceeding should not be stayed. So fix 11. 3. 61 for peremptory hearing. Respondent must be present on that day. The petition for stay is rejected. Petitioner's Advocate submits that his client will pay some amount on that day. Petitioner is therefore, directed, to pay the amount which the court has directed to pay for expenses of this litigation by the next date. ";

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.