Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 154 (ORI)

MANASI MOHANTY v. GOKUL CHANDRA DAS

2003-02-21

P.K.TRIPATHY

body2003
P. K. TRIPATHY, J. ( 1 ) ( 2 ) THIS CRP stands disposed of at the stage of admission after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 3 ) PETITIONER challenges the order dated 6-12-2002 vide Serial No. 152 in O. S. No. 39 of 1997 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Udala purporting to have been passed on an application under Section 151, C. P. C. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner states that O. S. No. 39 of 1997, a proceeding under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), was instituted by opposite party/husband and the petitioner/wife appeared as respondent in that suit. He further states that the application filed u/s. 24 of the Act having been rejected by the Court below relating to interim maintenance petitioner preferred Civil Revision No. 278 of 2001 and this Court enhanced the cost of litigation from Rs. 500/- to rs. 1500/- but did not direct for payment of interim maintenance. Earlier to that, an application filed by the present petitioner for calling for certain documents with respect to the income of the opposite party was subject-matter of consideration by this Court in Civil Revision No. 380 of 1999. That Civil Revision was disposed of on 10-8-2002. In that Civil Revision a contention was raised by opposite party (husband) that petitioner is not entitled to any interim maintenance because she herself is a working woman and while disposing of that Civil Revision, this Court had observed that aspect shall be duly considering while considering the application u/s. 24 of the Act. There the position on record as on date of the impugned order was that the application for interim maintenance was refused whereas the prayer for litigation expenditure was granted and that had been paid by the opposite party. When the matter stood thus petitioner filed the aforesaid application purporting to be one u/s. 151, C. P. C. for stay of the matrimonial proceeding until disposal of the application filed by the petitioner claiming a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenditure. Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) has rejected that application as per the impugned order. When the matter stood thus petitioner filed the aforesaid application purporting to be one u/s. 151, C. P. C. for stay of the matrimonial proceeding until disposal of the application filed by the petitioner claiming a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenditure. Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) has rejected that application as per the impugned order. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner referring to the case of Ganga Devi v. Krushna Prasad Sharma, (1965) 31 Cut LT 294 states that the application claiming for medical expenditure being essentially an application u/s. 24, C. P. C. was a proceeding which was pending in the Court below while the original suit was taken up for hearing and therefore without disposal of that application the suit should not have been taken up for hearing. Relying on the ratio in the case of Smt. Satish Bindra v. Surjit Singh Bindra, AIR 1977 Punj and Har 383 the same thing is reiterated. After going through the said citations this Court finds that the ratio in the said cases are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because of the above noted distinguishable circumstance. It is seen that though the original suit has been filed in the year 1997 but the petitioner has not lost stamina to repeatedly run to this Court for any and every matter instead of seeing for an early adjudication of the dispute in the matrimonial proceeding. ( 6 ) THE learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) while rejecting that application has opined that since the order passed u/s. 24 of the C. P. C. relating to litigation expenditure has been paid by the opposite party, therefore, there is neither any legal obligation for the Court to stay the proceeding nor there is legal impediment to proceed with the hearing of the suit. This Court finds no illegality in that approach of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division ). Any interim application filed by the petitioner may not be countenanced if that interferes with the early adjudication of the dispute. This Court expresses no opinion on the merit of the application filed for claiming medical expenditure but certainly finds that the impugned order is not liable to be interfered with in the absence of any jurisdictional error or illegality. The CRP stands dismissed accordingly. Petition dismissed.