1

28.04.2017
(23)

AKS

C.O. No. 3086 of 2016

Prithwish Paul
Vs.

Sangita Saha @ Paul

Mr. Diptangsu Basu
…for the petitioner.

Mr. Sagnik Chatterjee
… for the opposite party.

Let the affidavit of service filed by the learned Advocate for the
petitioner/husband be kept on record.

Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate, representing the opposite party/wife is
present before this court who submits that the Vokalatnama has already been filed in
the department.

Heard both sides.

Mr. Basu submits that the husband though has filed the matrimonial suit seeking
divorce in the year 2011 but since written statement has not yet been filed by the
opposite party/wife, the suit is not in a position to be proceeded with. Therefore, Mr.
Basu prays necessary direction upon the learned trial court for its expeditious disposal.

Par contra learned Advocate for the opposite party/wife submits that uptil now
the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the wife on 2nd
August, 2013 on the basis of which Misc. Case No. 15 of 2013 was registered in
connection with that matrimonial suit has not yet been disposed of allowing
maintenance pendente lite or even interim maintenance and litigation cost. Submitted
that due to financial hardship his client could not file written statement by contacting
her counsel.

Perused the certified copies of the orders annexed with the application right
from the order no. 1 dated 05/12/2011 to order no. 34 dated 26/07/2016 covering the
orders pertaining to matrimonial suit as well as the Misc. Case. Learned Advocates of
2

both sides apprised the court that the attempt of reconciliation has been failed as it
reveals from the order no. 34 dated 26/07/2016.

Equally it is observed by this court, that despite registration of Misc. Case No. 15
of 2013 connected with the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
maybe for the pendency of the stage of reconciliation, maybe sometimes for the P.O’s
remaining on leave, or, maybe on many occasions for taking adjournments by either of
the parties on different dates, the Misc. Case of the year 2013 could not be disposed of
within the last four years, as a result of which matrimonial suit itself of the year 2011
could not be proceeded with. In such nature of suit which is adjudicated within the
provision of special statute, both parties are to undergo through some obligations to
achieve ultimate relief at the end of the suit. It is also the bounden duty vested upon
the court to dispose of as early as possible the application under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act so that the wife may get adequate financial assistance to engage learned
Advocate of her own choice. The same may be one of the other grounds for not filing of
written statement uptil now.

However, since at the instance of the husband the innocuous prayer has come up
before this court for expeditious disposal of the suit, learned trial court is directed to
take up and dispose of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act
pending before the court with effect from 2nd August, 2013 (since written objection has
already been filed by the husband) within a period of three months from the date of
communication of this order and thereafter shall proceed with the suit for exhausting its
following stages including submission of written statement, framing of issues etc. to
bring the matter at the peremptory stage as early as possible without grant of
unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

In view of above, the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is
disposed of.

There will be no order as to costs.

Department is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the learned
trial court.

3

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to
the parties on priority basis.

( Mir Dara Sheko, J.)