Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 312 (CHH)

Gangotribai v. Banshilal Yadav

2013-10-30

SANJAY K.AGRAWAL

body2013
ORDER Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. By the impugned order dated 17.04.2013 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazar in H.M.A. No. 09-A/13 by which appellant's/wife application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act of 1984') has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that she is already getting Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance pendent lite in the proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Shri Sameer Singh, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned trial Court has committed illegality by not granting even the expenses of the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent/husband. 2. Per contra, Shri Hemant Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that an amount of Rs. 2,000/- granted by the Criminal Court to the appellant/wife covers the litigation expenses of this proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1984 also. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the rival submissions made therein. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not challenged the interim order dated 17.04.2013 by which maintenance pendent lite has been rejected by the Trial Court but confined his argument only to the expenses of the litigation proceeding. 5. It is true that expenses of the proceedings has not been granted by the trial Court while rejecting the appellant's/wife application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1984. 6. Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act reads as under: Maintenance pendent lite and expenses of proceeding: Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the Court that either the wife or husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable. 7. Thus, I hold that the appellant/wife is entitled for the expenses of the proceeding. Now, the question would arise for determination that what would be the quantum of expenses which the appellant/wife is entitled. 8. 7. Thus, I hold that the appellant/wife is entitled for the expenses of the proceeding. Now, the question would arise for determination that what would be the quantum of expenses which the appellant/wife is entitled. 8. At this stage, Shri Sameer Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that appellant is residing at South Jhagrakhan Collory, Tahsil, Manendragarh, District: Korea and the respondent has filed application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1984 at District Court Baloda Bazar and the distance between Manendragarh and Baloda Bazar is about 250 kms. and no direct bus facility is available between both the places and, therefore, the appellant/wife is entitled for Rs. 1,000/- for one date of hearing whereas Shri Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that an amount of Rs. 500/- is sufficient for this purpose. 9. Looking to the distance between two places i.e. Baloda Bazar and Manendragarh and further considering the fact that no direct bus facility is available between both the places and the appellant/wife is required to appear along with her minor son and to bear fee of the Advocate etc., Rs. 750/- for one day of hearing would be appropriate for litigation expenses. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. It is directed that respondent/husband would pay Rs. 750/- per date of hearing in advance to the appellant/wife till disposal of the original application pending before the Second Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazaar. 11. However, the trial Court is directed to decide the original application as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs.