IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CMPMO No. 162 of 2018
Decided on: 31.12.2018
.
Monika Sharma ………..Petitioner
Versus
Kuldeep Kumar Dogra ……….Respondent
Coram:
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
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
01/01/2019 20:02:45 :::HCHP
2
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
P-7).
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
3
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
4
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