Decided on December 03,1982

V K Kak Appellant
Kaliana Kak Respondents


- (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against a composite order passed by District Judge, Srinagar accepting alimony at the rate of 13000/ - per month and litigation expenses to the extent of Rs. 1200/ -in favour of the respondent wife, and simultaneously issuing a direction to one Ramash Agarwal of Gandhi nagar, Jammu. directing him to produce that property which was according to the respondent entrusted to him by her father -in -law, namely, the father of the petitioner as also an agreement alleged to have been executed between the parents of the parties.
(2.) WHEN his revision petition came to be admitted, this court issued an order staying the operation of the impugned order subject to the condition that the petitioner will deposit Rs. 150/ - per month as monthly maintanance from the date it fell due from him in terms of the trial courts order and a sum of Rs. 750/ - by way of litigation expenses in this court.
(3.) TODAY I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Mr. Choudhrys contention is that the learned District Judge has proceeded with hot haste in making the order for payment of maintenance and litigation expenses without allowing the parties to produce any evidence in support of their respective cases. His contention is that the petitioner had in his objections to the maintenance application stated that the respondent had an independent income which ought to have been taken into account while granting the monthly maintenance in her favour. As against this Mr. N, K, Ganjoo, learned counsel for the respondent argued that this being a matter requiring to be decided in a summary manner, even affidavits of the parties or their witnesses are enough to form a basis for the decision of the court, Even assuming what Mr. Ganjoo states is correct, one thing is sure that the court has to call upon the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective cases and leave it to them as to in what manner they would like to prove their cases. This may be done by examining the witnesses or by filing affidavits. It is common ground that the parties were never called upon to lead any evidence on the application as well as the objections filed to it. I have, therefore, no option but to set aside, the order of the court to this extent and remit the case back to it with the direction that it will pass fresh order on the application of the respondent for grant of monthly maintenance as well for litigation expenses after giving the parties an opportunity to prove their respective cases by whatever manner they like.;

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