SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri Asish Mallick vs Smt. Soma Mallick on 13 January, 2020

1

13.01.2020
srm

C.O. No. 4237 of 2019

Sri Asish Mallick
Vs.
Smt. Soma Mallick

Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee
…for the Petitioner/Husband.
Mr. Arindam Banerjee,
Mr. Amal Kumar Banerjee
…for the Opposite Party/Wife.

This revisional application has been filed by the

respondent/husband in Matrimonial Suit No.240 of 2002. By the orders

impugned dated September 26, 2019 and November 29, 2019 both passed

by the learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court at Howrah, the prayer

for adjournment of the petitioner was refused and the evidence of the

petitioner was closed. November 29, 2019 was fixed for argument, and

by an order dated November 29, 2019 the further prayer for adjournment

of the petitioner was rejected and the hearing of the suit was proceeded

with and December 20, 2019 was fixed for judgement. Thereafter, this

revisional application was filed and the orders impugned were stayed.

It appears that the petitioner had filed an application for

amendment of the written statement. The said application for

amendment of the written statement was allowed by an order dated
2

April 18, 2019. The learned Court below had directed the petitioner to

take steps in terms of Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The learned Court below fixed April 30, 2019 for taking such steps.

The order sheet reveals that there was a prolonged cease work of

the learned Advocates of the local Bar Association on and from April 24,

2019 to May 29, 2019 and the learned Court below had fixed July 16, 2019

for taking steps under Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

On that date amended written statement was filed. It further appears

that the petitioner filed an application for modification in Misc. Case

No.28 of 2019 for modification of the order of maintenance pendente lite

on account of his retirement from service. On September 26, 2019 the

petitioner prayed for an adjournment on the ground that the suit may

not be disposed of until the application for modification of the order of

maintenance pendente lite was disposed of finally. The learned Court

below rejected the application for adjournment and directed the

petitioner to adduce evidence. The petitioner did not adduce evidence

on that date and the evidence of the petitioner was closed. November 29,

2019 was fixed for argument. On November 29, 2019 the petitioner again

prayed for adjournment on the ground that an application for transfer of

the suit had been filed before the learned District Judge, which was
3

registered as 120 of 2019. The learned Court below rejected the

application for adjournment, proceeded with hearing of the suit,

concluded the hearing of the suit and fixed December 20, 2019 for

delivery of the judgement.

From the orders impugned, it appear that the written statement of

the petitioner was filed within the extended time given by the learned

Court below and as such written statement should be accepted. Next, it

appears that admittedly an application for modification has been filed

before the learned Court below and the said application was also

requires to be disposed of expeditiously.

The contention of the learned Advocate for the opposite

party/wife that the learned Court below was under direction of this

Court for expeditious disposal of the suit and as such the prayers for

adjournment of the husband/petitioner was rightly rejected, inasmuch

as, the said applications were filed only to delay the proceedings.

In adversely form of litigation specially in a matrimonial matter

substantial justice can be done when both parties are allowed to proceed

in free and fair manner. The effect of such disposal of such suit has a

social impact and also affect the children and as such complete justice

would be sub‐served if both the parties are allowed to contest by filing
4

their pleadings and adduce their evidence. Thus, the orders dated

September 26, 2019 is set aside directing the learned Court below to

allow the husband to accept the additional written statement and adduce

evidence as also hear out the application for modification. By setting

aside the order dated September 26, 2019, the order dated November 29,

2019 cannot survive and the same is also set aside accordingly. This

Court is conscious of the fact that there is an order of a co‐ordinate Bench

directing disposal of the matrimonial suit.

Under such circumstances, Matrimonial Suit No.240 of 2002 shall

be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of

communication of this order by accepting the additional written

statement, allowing the husband to depose as also the application for

modification of the order of maintenance pendente lite should be disposed

of.

This Court has not gone into the claims and counterclaims of the

parties. The leaned Court below will proceed in accordance with law.

With regard to the application for transfer, the learned Advocate

for the petitioner upon instruction from his client submits that if his

client is allowed to adduce evidence then his client will not proceed with

Misc. Case No.122 of 2019.

5

Liberty is given to the petitioner to take immediate steps for

withdrawal of such Misc. Case No.122 of 2019 and file information

and/or copy of this order before the learned Trial Judge.

As the suit has been pending for a long time the period mentioned

hereinabove is mandatory.

This revisional application is, thus, disposed of.

There will be, however, no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be

given to the parties on priority basis.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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