Skip to content


Shakuntala Vs. Amar Nath - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revision No. 1523 of 1976
Judge
Reported in(1977)79PLR405
ActsHindu Marriage Act - Sections 24
AppellantShakuntala
RespondentAmar Nath
Excerpt:
.....finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. amended section 100-a of the code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge..........to any affidavit or counter-affidavit of the parties, nor has she stated that she believes or disbelieves or partially believes or disbelieves any of the affidavits or any evidence led by the parties. an order of this type, which does not contain either the facts or the grounds on which it is based is no order in the eye of law.2. i, therefore, allow this revision petition, set aside the order of the trial court and direct it to redecide the application of the petitioner under s. 24 of the act in accordance with law. further proceedings in the main case shall remain stayed in the trial court till the application of the petitioner under s. 24 is decided and the amount assessed payable to the petitioner therein is paid out by the husband to her. the parties are left to bear their own.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The order of Mrs. Sudarshan Modi, Subordinate Judge, First Class, Jullundur, dated May 7, 1976, fixing the maintenance allowance of the petitioner at Rs. 30 per mensem and litigation expenses payable to her at Rs. 125 under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is set aside on the short ground that the order is not supported by any reasons. She has not referred to any affidavit or counter-affidavit of the parties, nor has she stated that she believes or disbelieves or partially believes or disbelieves any of the affidavits or any evidence led by the parties. An order of this type, which does not contain either the facts or the grounds on which it is based is no order in the eye of law.

2. I, therefore, allow this revision petition, set aside the order of the trial Court and direct it to redecide the application of the petitioner under S. 24 of the Act in accordance with law. Further proceedings in the main case shall remain stayed in the trial Court till the application of the petitioner under S. 24 is decided and the amount assessed payable to the petitioner therein is paid out by the husband to her. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

3. Revision allowed.


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