Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 129 (ORI)

Manasi Mohanty v. Gokul Chandra Das

2002-02-28

P.K.TRIPATHY

body2002
ORDER 28.2.2002 — Heard 2. This Civil Revision is directed against order passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Udala on 29.8.2001 in Misc. Case No. 24 of 1998, arising out of Original Suit No. 39 of 1997. That application was filed by the present petitioner praying for interim maintenance and litigation expenditure under Section 2 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (in short, the ‘Act’) in as much as in Original Suit No. 39 of 1997 the prayer is for a decree of divorce. The petitioner appears as the defendant in that Original Suit. 3. It is not at controversy that both the spouses are serving as teachers and having monthly salary. In view of that and keeping in view the statutory provision in Section 24 of the Act, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) has declined to grant any order for interim maintenance. So far as the prayer of the peti¬tioner for litigation expenditure is concerned, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) directed the plaintiff/opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (five hundred). 4. In course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that petitioner is not entitled to interim maintenance and accordingly such a prayer is not pressed. He, however, states that since the petitioner claimed for Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) towards litigation expenditure, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) was unreasonable in granting a paltry sum of Rs. 500/-. Learned counsel for the opp. party, on the other hand argues that when the petitioner is capable of undertaking series of litigation, both civil and criminal, and is also capa¬ble to spend for those litigation from her source of income, the amount granted vide the impugned order may be accepted as reason¬able and it should not be enhanced. 5. Considering the aforesaid submission of both the par¬ties and taking into consideration their respective salaries besides the fact that because of the disputed relationship be¬tween them both the spouses have undertaken several round of litigations, indeed, the petitioner needs financial assistance to properly defend her case in Original Suit No. 39 of 1997. The contention of the opposite party cannot be adopted as a logic for non-enhancement of litigation expenditure in as much as petition¬er has sought for the legal remedies by spending from her income because of the dispute which subsists between the spouses. The contention of the opposite party cannot be adopted as a logic for non-enhancement of litigation expenditure in as much as petition¬er has sought for the legal remedies by spending from her income because of the dispute which subsists between the spouses. To add to the series of litigations when the present litigation, i.e, O.S.No. 39 of 1997 has been initiated at the instance of the opposite party and in that respect when the trial Court has granted litigation expenditure, to which she is entitled only in the event of non-availability of sufficient income, this Court feels that cost of litigation should be proportionately reasona¬ble. Hence, taking into due consideration of their respective income, as noted in the impugned order, it is just and proper that a sum of Rs. 1,500/- (one thousand five hundred) shall be appropriate to enable the petitioner to fight out the litigation in the trial Court. Accordingly, the amount of litigation expend¬iture is enhanced to Rs. 1,500/- (one thousand five hundred). The opposite party agrees to pay the same to the petitioner within a period of four weeks hence and undertakes to file the receipt before the Court below within that period. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiff/opp. party states that a direction may be issued to the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the civil proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to that. In view of that, it is directed that if the aforesaid cost shall be paid in time and receipt be filed in the Court below, then learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) shall do well to grant one month’s time (from that date) to the petitioner/defendant to file her written statement and thereafter within a further period of three months, shall hear and dispose of the Original Suit. The Civil Revision is accordingly partly allowed. Revision allowed in part.