Skip to content


Purusottam Das Agarwala Vs. Smt. Puspa Devi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 60 of 1981
Judge
Reported inAIR1982Ori270
ActsHindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 24
AppellantPurusottam Das Agarwala
RespondentSmt. Puspa Devi
Appellant AdvocateC.V. Murty, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateR.K. Prabaraj, Adv.
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 173(1) proviso; [d. biswas, amitava roy & i.a.ansari, jj] appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot..........for interim maintenance as also litigation expenses. by the impugned order dated 13-1-1981, the learned subordinate judge has directed that maintenance for the wife should be at the rate of rs. 150 per month, maintenance for the child living with wife should be at the rate of rs. 100 per month and consolidated sum of rs. 500 could be paid as litigation expenses. mr. murty appearing for the petitioner contends that in an applicationunder section 24 of the act, maintenance for a child is not contemplated and he also relies on the feature that the child here is said to be not born out of the wedlock, he also contends that the expense of rs. 500 as awarded is excessive.2. so far as the first contention is concerned, i would agree, the award of maintenance for a child is not within the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

R.N. Misra, C.J.

1. In a pending action under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the husband against wife, an application under Section 24 of the Act was made asking for interim maintenance as also litigation expenses. By the impugned order dated 13-1-1981, the learned Subordinate Judge has directed that maintenance for the wife should be at the rate of Rs. 150 per month, maintenance for the child living with wife should be at the rate of Rs. 100 per month and consolidated sum of Rs. 500 could be paid as litigation expenses. Mr. Murty appearing for the petitioner contends that in an applicationunder Section 24 of the Act, maintenance for a child is not contemplated and he also relies on the feature that the child here is said to be not born out of the wedlock, He also contends that the expense of Rs. 500 as awarded is excessive.

2. So far as the first contention is concerned, I would agree, The award of maintenance for a child is not within the purview of Section 24 of the Act and accordingly I would delete the direction for payment of maintenance to the child. I do not propose to interfere with the quantum of litigation expenses as ordered to be paid.

3. The suit has been pending for quite some time. The learned Subordinate Judge shall have a direction to dispose of the suit before closure of the Court for the long vacation.

There shall be no direction for costs. Order accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //