High CourtsDivision Bench(1967) 07 CAL CK 0023

Sm. Latika Ghosh vs Nirmal Kumar Ghosh

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 12 July 1967 · Citation: AIR 1968 Cal 68 : (1968) 2 ILR (Cal) 354

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.N. Mookerjee, J · A.K. Dutt, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision Case No. 1427 of 1967

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 364 words
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 u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for alimony pendent 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 such 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 quickly as possible.