R.A.Misra, J. - (1.) This application for transfer has been moved for transfer of a divorce petition No. 11 of 1983 Inder Singh v. Smt. Saroj Kumari, pending before IV Addl. District Judge, Mainpuri. The petition has been filed for divorce by Inder Singh, the husband of the applicant Smt. Saroj Kumari. This transfer application has been moved mainly on two grounds; first, that the learned Judge has on 13th of November 1984 disposed of the applicant's application for stay of the proceedings in hot haste and in illegal manner, and secondly that the Reader of the court wants to marry his daughter to Sri Inder Singh, the husband of the applicant Smt. Saroj Kumari and is using his influence upon the court.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and gone through affidavit and annexures. It so appears that 13th November 84 was fixed for hearing of the divorce petition and recording of evidence. The witnesses of the petitioner Sri Inder Singh alongwith the legal expert were in attendance. The applicant Smt. Saroj Kumari moved an application for staying further proceedings on the ground that the petitioner Sri Inder Singh has not paid the maintenance allowance and expenses of the petition as directed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned Judge rejected this prayer for staying the proceedings on the ground that the petition has been adjourned on several dates and as the witnesses of the petitioner alongwith the Lady Doctor were in attendance so it would be appropriate to record the evidence of the witnesses who were present and adjourned the case to accommodate the applicant Smt. Saroj Kumari for producing her evidence on subsequent date. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the applicant Smt. Saroj Kumari that this order is wholly illegal because the court below was required under law to stay the proceedings till the maintenance allowance and expenses as directed to be paid by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act were paid to her. The learned counsel for the applicant urged before me that there is no provision for executing the orders under Section 24 of the Act and so the court shall have to stay the proceedings to coerce the petitioner for paying the maintenance allowance. Section 28 (a) of the the Hindu Marriage Act empowers the court to enforce its order made in any proceeding under Hindu Marriage Act in the like manner as the decrees and orders of Civil Courts exercising original civil jurisdiction are enforced. So there is no substance in the contention that the order under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not enforceable, and so that court was required to stay the proceedings so as to coerce the petitioner Inder Singh to pay the amount. The order passed by court below is perfectly justified. It was an adjourned date and as mentioned in the order the case was adjourned on previous occasions also. The witnesses for the petitioner were in attendance. The learned Judge, therefore, rightly refused to adjourn the case wholly though the application of Smt. Saroj Kumari could have been rejected wholly and the learned judge was kind enough to allow it in part and accommodate applicant Smt. Saroj Kumari by giving her another date for producing her evidence. The order passed by court below does not in any way indicate that he is prejudiced against the applicant Smt. Saroj Kumari. The other contention that the order on the application has been made in hot haste again has no substance. The case was fixed for final hearing. The witnesses were in attendance. The applicant moved application for staying the proceedings. The court had no option but to dispose of the application on the very day. The fact that the learned Judge disposed of the application on that very day is not such which may raise any apprehension in the mind of a man of ordinary prudence that the learned Judge is prejudiced and would not give justice to the parties.
(3.) No application for transfer of the petition has been moved before the learned District Judge nor any complaint has been made to him. That the Reader of IV Additional District Judge is exploiting the Presiding Officer. No reason has been given why no application was moved before the District Judge for transfer of the petition to another court. The affidavit has been filed by a Pairokar who as informed by the learned Counsel for the applicant is landlord of the applicant Smt. Saroj Kumari. The affidavit does not inspire confidence that the Reader of the court is exploiting the Presiding Officer and that the Presiding Officer is in a mood to oblige the Reader. In the result having considered the entire facts and circumstances appearing on the record I see no good ground to transfer the petition. The application for the same is consequently rejected. If the applicant is aggrieved with the conduct of the Reader of the court he may approach the District Judge and complain about its conduct and I hope that if applicant satisfied the District Judge that the Reader is exploiting the Presiding Officer, that least that can be done is that the Reader may be transferred from that court.;