AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Deb, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant.
This appeal has been preferred against the order of dismissal on the petition under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC in Divorce Suit No. 14 of 1993.
The divorce suit was contested by both the parties and then it appears that a compromise was there but that compromise was not effected then the Appellant had given up appearing in this suit and as such, the suit was decreed on 23.2.1998 in favour of the husband-Respondent. After passing of such decree the husband has also married for the second time and a offspring is there in that new marriage. All these points have been considered in the petition under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC and when delay could not be properly explained the petition has been dismissed.
do not want to interfere with this matter as the same does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality Then it has been submitted that there was a petition u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for determination and maintenance pendente lite. When divorce has been granted then at least if the petition has not been decided and if any petition is filed u/s 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act then the earlier petition being converted into a petition u/s 25 of the Act is to be decided by the court below as the Court does not become functus officio for the purpose of permanent alimony.
Thus, this appeal is dismissed with observation that if the Petitioner desires she may pursue permanent alimony. If the Appellant moves before the appellate court for permanent alimony, the same may be decided within a period of three months from the date of move after giving opportunity of hearing to both.