DILIPBHAI CHHAGANLAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent No. 2 Bhanumati filed a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for divorce. She also took out a notice of motion bearing No. 4551 of 1981 for interim alimony under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It appears that initially the said notice of motion came to be decided ex parte. However, the said ex parte order was set aside and ultimately after hearing both sides the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay by his order dated 20th January, 1982 made the notice of motion absolute and granted Rs. 150/- per month as interim maintenance to the petitioner-wife from 1st October, 1981. He also granted Rs. 500/- towards expenses. It is this order of the City Civil Court, Bombay which is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) Shri Vyas the learned Counsel appearing for the original respondent-husband contended before me that the order passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay is without jurisdiction since the learned Judge has failed to follow the mandatory provisions of section 23(2) and (3) of the Hindu Marriage Act. According to Shri Vyas unless this procedure was followed it was not open to the Court to proceed further in the matter and grant relief under section 24. He also contended that the attention of the Court was specifically drawn towards this provision of the Act and inspite of this the learned Judge without making any efforts to bring about reconciliation has passed the order under section 24 which is wholly without jurisdiction.

(3.) On the other hand it is contended by Shri Vichare the learned Counsel for respondent wife that section 24 of the Act is an independent provision and is not controlled by section 23(2). In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in A.I.R. 1977 Delhi 76 (Mrs. Arti Singh v. Lt. Col. Kanwar Pal Singh) and A.I.R. 1977 Delhi 176 (Smt Chitra Lekha v. Ranjit Raj) Shri Salik the learned Assistant Government Pleader supported the contention raised by Shri Vichare and also placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in A.I.R. 1979 Bombay 264 (Smt. Gangu Pundlik Waghmare v. Pundlik Maroti Waghmare & anr.) Section 23(2) and (3) of the Hindu Marriage Act of the Hindu Marriage Act reads as under :---