Ahmadi, J. - (1.) Delay condoned. Special leave granted in both matters. The facts leading to these cases, briefly stated, are that the appellant-Anita married respondent Laxmi Narain on November 1, 1987 at Ghaziabad according to Hindu rites. It is the appellant's case (supra) that on the very next day at the Bidai ceremony the relatives of her husband raised a dispute regarding inadequacy of dowry amount. However, that dispute was settled for the time being by respectable persons but Anita was not happy at her husband's home on account of ill-treatment meted out to her by the respondent. Ultimately on March 11, 1988 she left for her father's house in Ghaziabad and since then she has been living there.
(2.) The respondent sent, a notice through his Advocate dated November 16, 1988 and followed it up by filing a Divorce Petition under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the City Civil Court at Bombay. On the appellant being served with the notice of the divorce petition she went to Bombay and entered an appearence and also filed an application for maintenance pendente lite. Even thereafter she attended court on several adjournments but there was no progress in the matter.On October 3, 1989 the proceedings were transferred to the family court at Bandra,Bombay, and the appellant was informed about the same.The appellant filed a complaint under S. 498A, IPC against the respondent at Ghaziabad on December 13, 1989. The appellant paid several visits to Bombay to attend the divorce proceedings in the Family Court but the matter was only adjourned from time to time. An effort was made by the Marriage Counsellor of the Family Court to bring about a settlement on May 22, 1990 but in vain. Tired of making long trips from Ghaziabad to Bombay the appellant preferred a Transfer Petition in this Court for transferring the case from Bombay to Ghaziabad wherein notice was issued and the respondent filed his counter. The Transfer Petition was ultimately disposed of by this Court's order dated January 14, 1991 to the following effect: "Since the matter is pending in the Family Court in which the petitioner herself has also filed an application bearing No. 4091/89, we think it would be advisable to allow the Family Court to dispose of the. matter expeditiously. The ends of justice would suffice if we direct that on each occasion the petitioner-wife is required to attend the Family Court, the Family Court will first insist on the husband depositing the to and fro fare for the petitioner and a companion and also an amount sufficient for their stay in Bombay on each visit. For the next visit to Bombay we direct the husband to deposit a sum of Rs. 2500/- in the Family Court under notice to the petitioner. We also hope that the Family Court will appreciate the difficulty of the petitioner-wife and try to dispose of the matter as early as possible, With these observations we dispose of the matter and vacate the stay but with liberty to the petitioner-wife to move this Court in case of difficulty." It was only after this order was passed that the respondent filed his reply to the appellant's application for grant of interim maintenance and cost of proceedings. As her first application was not taken up for hearing she filed another application for payment of expenses etc. The Family Court dismissed her application for interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings on the ground that she was gainfully employed. The only amount allowed by the Family Court was Rs. 700/- towards second class sleeper Railway fare for herself and her companion. The Family Court also observed that if she and her companion are required to stay in Bombay the respondent will pay Rs. 150/- for additional days. After this order dated April 20, 1991 the appellant was directed to file her statement by May 20, 1991.
(3.) Feeling aggrieved by this order the appellant approached this Court seeking special leave to appeal against the said order. She also filed I.A. No. 4 of 1991 in Transfer Petition No.521/90 in view of the liberty reserved unto her by this Court's order dated January 14, 1991. In the meantime the divorce proceedings were listed before the Family Court on September 23, 1991 and as the appellant was held up for attending to her special leave petition against the interim order she sought an adjournment by a letter sent through courier service on September 21, 1991. However that being a holiday the Family Court did not hold its sitting but took up the matter on the next day. Since the letter written by the appellant had reached the Family Court, the Family Court adjourned the matter to October 7, 1991 with a direction to obtain a stay from the Supreme Court or else the matter would proceed. Intimation about the said order was sent to the appellant at her old address even though her new address was communicated to the Family Court earlier. The proceedings were adjourned from October 7, 1991 to October 11, 1991 and thereafter to October 19, 1991 without intimation to the appellant. The evidence was recorded on October 19, 1991 and the judgment was pronounced on October 21, 1991 allowing the divorce petition and granting a decree for divorce ex parte. The appellant has preferred a special leave petition against the said order granting divorce on the plea that she had been condemned unheard by the Family Court as she could not attend the Court on account of her inability to meet the expenses for travel and residence in Bombay. These are the circumstances in which the aforesaid proceedings have arisen before this Court.;