AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 384 wordsS.S. Sudhalkar, J.
This petition has been filed challenging the order of interim maintenance to the wife who is respondent in this case passed by the learned Sub Division Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara.
Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned Advocate for the respondent.
The learned Advocate for the petitioner argued that the parties be called to remain present for compromise. If the order of dated 13.9.95 is seen, Hon''ble Judge of this Court had issued notice to the respondent in view of the submission made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. Further, though notice was issued, no compromise has taken place till today. Moreover the matter is pending at the interim stage.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner has cited before me the case of Sardar Surjeet Singh v. Smt. Rajendra Kaur, 1989(3) Civil Court Cases 571. In that case a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed in favour of husband. Application for maintenance for wife was filed. The learned Single judge of Allahabad High Court was pleased to allow the revision petition. The learned Advocate for the petitioner argued that in this case also decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the petitioner. However, the case being at interim stage, this point can be raised before the trial court. Therefore, it will be in the interest of the petitioner to raise these points before the trial Court. It will not be proper to consider all these aspects because the order challenged is an interlocutory order of the trial court and even no revision is maintainable. Again to repeat, all these aspects are to be considered by the trial court and the fact of decree of restitution of conjugal right has also to be considered by the trial court and I do not find it proper to interfere in the interim order passed by the trial court by this judgment in the revision petition.
In view of the above position, this revision petition is dismissed. The trial court is directed to expedite the matter and dispose it of within three months from today. If the trial court is not in a position to dispose of the matter during the time prescribed, it shall ask for extension of time stating the reasons for the same.