P.N.Mookerjee, J. - (1.) This Rule arises out of a proceeding under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Before the District Judge, 24 Parganas, the present petitioner, who is the husband, applied for restitution! of conjugal rights as against the opposite party, who is, admittedly, his married wife. The application was made on August 6, 1959, under Section 9 of the above Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and, under the prevailing practice, it was registered as Title Suit No. 254 of 1959. Thereafter, the suit was transferred to the Fifth Court of the Additional District Judge at Alipore, where it was eventually registered as Title Suit No 82 of 1959 of that Court.
(2.) While this suit was proceeding, the present opposite party, who was also the opposite party or the defendant or respondent in the above suit, applied, on September 5, 1959, for maintenance pendente lite and also for expenses of litigation, under Section 24 of the above Hindu Marriage Act. This application was opposed by the present petitioner, who contended, inter alia, that the said application was not maintainable in law at the instance of the aforesaid applicant and that, in any event, in the circumstances of this case, the present opposite party who Was the said applicant was not entitled to anything by way of maintenance pendente lite or costs or expenses of litigation. The learned Additional District Judge however, allowed the opposite party's application and granted her maintenance, pendente Ute at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month with effect from September 5, 1959, and, in addition thereto a sum of Rs. 100/- as costs of litigation or expenses of the proceeding. Against this Order, the present Rule was obtained by the opposite party on May 2, 1960.
(3.) Having regard to the circumstances of this case and the urgency of the matter, in the interests of the parties the Rule was made returnable within one month, it appears from the Order Book before me that the Rule became ready as regards appearance, sometime towards the end of May, 1960. Strangely, however the records of the lower court, which were to be obtained from the learned District Judge, 24-Parganas, do not appear to have reached this Court before June 21, 1960. Be that as it may, the Rule became ready and was placed on the General List on June 21 1960, but it did not appear on the Daily List before possibly August, 1960, and, then also, it appeared before a Single Bench, sitting temporarily, and it receded to the background in spite of its urgency and in spite of its being a Fixed Rule as soon as the said Bench broke up. Thereafter, it appears, it did not come up in the Daily List before this day and, in the interval of about six or seven months, nothing appears to have been done either by the parties or by the office of this Court to bring up this Rule for hearing before any Bench. This delay is, indeed regrettable, as it has put the parties--and the Court also,--in the present matter in a somewhat awkward, difficult and embarrassing position. I have made this preliminary observation in order that greater care may be taken in future in the matter of transmission of records to this Court and for bringing up urgent matters in proper time for hearing before the Court.;