Smt. Rina Poddar vs 46 Sri Radha Kanta Poddar on 30 June, 2017

1

Ct-30 30.6.2017 C.O 1111 of 2012

Smt. Rina Poddar
Vs.

46 Sri Radha Kanta Poddar

None appears to represent the petitioner.
ar

However, considering the very nature of the
case and its old age the matter is taken up for
consideration and disposal on merit.

Perused the materials on record and
impugned order.

It appears that in the matrimonial suit for
divorce filed by the opposite party/husband who
will be called on hereafter as the opposite party.
The petitioner/wife who will be called on
hereafter as the petitioner filed an application
under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act
seeking maintenance pendente lite.

From the impugned order dated 16.02.2012
passed by learned Additional District Judge,
Howrah, in Misc. Case no. 83 of 2007 arising out
of Matrimonial Suit No. 627 of 2005 the
petitioner at the stage of further cross-
examination to OPW 1 filed an application
proposing amendment for incorporation of some
2

alleged subsequent events. Learned Trial Court
deferred accordingly the further cross-
examination of OPW 1 and fixed another date for
further cross-examination.

It further appears from the latter part of the
order dated 16.02.2012 that the petitioner filed
an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the
Code of Civil Procedure proposing amendment,
copy of which was supplied to the other side.
The petitioner simultaneously filed another
application to shift the hearing of the case from
peremptory board and fixing specific date for
hearing of that amendment petition. Learned
Trial Court fixed thereafter 2nd April, 2012 for
necessary order. The petitioner filed this
application under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India assailing the stay order dated 16th
February, 2012 mainly on ground nos. 14 and
15 which are set out here and now:-

“14. Your petitioner submits that the Learned
Judge in the Court below failed to consider that
the amendment as sort for by the petitioner is
with regard to some subsequent events and
unless the same could be brought on record the
further proceedings of the instant suit cannot be
proceded.

3

15. Your petitioner submits that the impugned
order passed by the Learned Judge in the Court
below is not sustainable in the eye of law and is,
therefore, required to be set aside.”

Now while the grievance of the petitioner is
noticed to above nature the impugned order by
which the opportunity of hearing as sought for
by the petitioner has been allowed virtually to
dispose of the amendment application by fixing a
date for necessary order upon hearing both
sides.

The revisional application is held not
maintainable and the CO 1111 of 2012 is
accordingly dismissed on merit.

Stay order, if any, granted by this Court,
stands vacated.

No order as to cost.

Since none appears, department is directed
to communicate this order to the learned Trial
Court for information and necessary action,
provided the suit is still pending.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order,
if applied for, be given to the parties on usual
4

undertaking.

(Mir Dara Sheko, J.)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *