Skip to content


Sm. Latika Ghosh Vs. Nirmal Kumar Ghosh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily;Civil
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Case No. 1427 of 1967
Judge
Reported inAIR1968Cal68
ActsHindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 24
AppellantSm. Latika Ghosh
RespondentNirmal Kumar Ghosh
Appellant AdvocateAditya Narain Roy, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateAmarendra Nath Gupta, Adv.
DispositionRevision allowed
Excerpt:
- .....be heard. by the second order, the said learned judge rejected the petitioner's prayer for time to file written statement on the ground that the same could not be filed before the alimony matter was decided, and fixed a particular date for ex parte hearing of the suit.2. in our view, this rule must be made absolute and the impugned orders must be set aside. it is not open to the learned judge under the statute, as it stands, or, under the relevant law, to impose a condition on an applicant for alimony that her said application will not be heard unless she files her written statement. the statute nowhere permits auch a course, which would be opposed to the equities of the instant case, and. accordingly the first of the above two orders of the learned trial judge is wrong and must be set.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This Rule was obtained by the petitioner against two orders of the learned trial Judge in the Matrimonial Suit, pending before him, for judicial separation at the instance of the opposite party (husband). By the first order, the learned trial Judge directed the petitioner (wife) to file her written statement before her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for alimony pcndente lite would be heard. By the second order, the said learned Judge rejected the petitioner's prayer for time to file written statement on the ground that the same could not be filed before the alimony matter was decided, and fixed a particular date for ex parte hearing of the suit.

2. In our view, this Rule must be made absolute and the impugned orders must be set aside. It is not open to the learned Judge under the statute, as it stands, or, under the relevant law, to impose a condition on an applicant for alimony that her said application will not be heard unless she files her written statement. The statute nowhere permits auch a course, which would be opposed to the equities of the instant case, and. accordingly the first of the above two orders of the learned trial Judge is wrong and must be set aside.

3. The second order seems to be a dependent order and further, on the face of it, it is unjust, when it fixes the suit for ex parte hearing after rejection of the petitioner's prayer for time to file the written statement in the circumstances of this case We would, accordingly, set aside that order too.

4. The Rule will, accordingly, be made absolute as above, the Impugned orders will be set aside and the case will be sent back to the learned trial Judge so that the petitioner's application for alimony pendente lite may be heard out and disposed of as quickly as possible after giving due opportunities to the opposite party to file his objection thereto. The petitioner will file his written statement, if any, after the above disposal.

5. There will be no order for costs in this Rule.

6. Let the records go down quicklyas possible.


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