SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Monika Sharma vs Kuldeep Kumar Dogra on 31 December, 2018

CMPMO No. 162 of 2018
Decided on: 31.12.2018


Monika Sharma ………..Petitioner


Kuldeep Kumar Dogra ……….Respondent

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1

For the Petitioner : Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate.

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 24.1.2018,

passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, District

Hamirpur, H.P., whereby an application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 (in short “the Act”) for grant of maintenance pendent-

lite, came to be dismissed, applicant/petitioner (herein after referred to as

the applicant), has approached this Court in the instant proceedings

filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to set-

aside aforesaid impugned order and to allow the application filed under

Section 24 of the Act.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the material available on record vis-à-vis impugned order passed by the

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

01/01/2019 20:02:45 :::HCHP

learned court below, this Court finds that marriage inter-se applicant and

respondent stands dissolved by way of decree dated 1.11.2012, which


has been affirmed by this Court vide judgment dated 31.7.2015 (Annexure


3. Learned counsel for the applicant fairly acknowledged that

aforesaid judgment of this Court affirming decree passed by the court

below dissolving the marriage inter-se parties has attained finality

because no appeal, whatsoever, has been filed against the same. After

disposal of the appeal i.e. FAO No. 303 of 2008 dated 8.12.2009, applicant

filed petition under Section 25 of the Act, claiming therein

maintenance/permanent alimony. In those proceedings, applicant filed

application under Section 24 of the Act, praying therein for grant of

maintenance pendent-lite and expenses of proceedings, learned court

below vide impugned order referred herein above, dismissed the

application. In the aforesaid background, applicant has approached this

Court in the instant proceedings.

4. Mr. Nitin Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant states that

bare perusal of impugned order clearly suggests that court below while

ascertaining the income of the applicant took note of the documents,

which were filed by the respondent-husband in the revision petition filed in

the year, 2009. He contended that in the instant proceedings, there is

01/01/2019 20:02:45 :::HCHP

nothing on record suggestive of the fact that applicant has sufficient

means to maintain herself and as such, court below ought to have


allowed her application filed under Section 24 of the Act.

5. This Court having carefully perused impugned order finds

that application under Section 25 of the Act, is pending adjudication

since January, 2017. Learned court below took almost one year to decide

the application under Section 24 having been filed by the applicant,

which laxity on the part of Court, in no circumstances, could be said to be

justifiable. In such like proceedings, courts below are expected to act

with utmost promptitude and as such, this Court without going into the

merits of the instant order deems it fit to dispose of the present petition

with a direction to the court below to decide the main petition

expeditiously preferably, within a period of two months from today.

Ordered accordingly.

6. Learned counsel for the parties undertake to cause

presence of their respective clients before the court below on 10.1.2019,

to enable it to proceed with the matter. Both the parties also undertake

before this Court that they would not take unnecessary adjournment so

that court below is able to decide the matter within the time stipulated by

this Court. Record, if any, be sent back forthwith. Registry is directed to

01/01/2019 20:02:45 :::HCHP

apprise the court below with regard to passing of the instant order to

enable it to do the needful within the stipulated period.


7. This Court has been informed that on the basis of pleadings

adduced on record by the respective parties, issues stand already

framed and now evidence is to commence, and as such, court below

shall grant only one opportunity each to both the parties to lead the

evidence, and in the event of not availing the opportunity within time

stipulated by this Court, court below is at liberty to proceed with the

matter in accordance with law.

8. In the aforesaid terms, petition stands disposed of, so also

pending application(s), if any.

31st December, 2018 (Sandeep Sharma),

manjit Judge

01/01/2019 20:02:45 :::HCHP

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation