AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.R. Mohapatra, J
This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
Order dated 19th July, 2023 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Aska in CS No.2 of 2017 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- for three months as maintenance to the Opposite Party.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that marriage between the Petitioner and the Opposite Party has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce. Petition under Order IX Rule 13 Cr.P.C. filed by the Opposite Party-Wife has already been rejected and the appeal against the said order has also been rejected. Application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the Opposite Party – Wife has also been rejected on the ground that the Opposite Party had willfully deserted the Petitioner. Since the marriage between the parties has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce the instant suit is not maintainable. A petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has also been filed with a prayer to reject the plaint filed by the Opposite Party-Wife on the ground of lack of cause of action and territorial jurisdiction. These material aspects were not considered by learned trial Court while passing the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the record, it appears that CS No.2 of 2017 has been filed by the Opposite Party for grant of maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to her under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’). The Opposite Party also prayed for a direction to the Petitioner to pay Rs.20,000/- per annum to the Plaintiff No.2 (minor son of the parties) towards his education. It appears that learned trial Court discussing the materials on record, held that the Opposite Party is entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards interim maintenance and has granted a sum of Rs.15,000/- for three months as interim maintenance. In the proceeding under Sections 18 and 20 of the Act, a divorced wife is also entitled to maintenance. It appears that from the record that the Opposite Party has no independent source of income. Hence, learned trial Court has committed no illegality in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, I find no merit in the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Hence, the CMP stands dismissed.
…………………………..