Madan Lal vs Santosh Kumari and Another

J.V. Gupta, J.—In this miscellaneous application the meaningful question raised on behalf of the Petitioner (husband) is that the wife respondent is, not entitled to any litigation expenses u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act because the proceeding in the revision petition arising out of an order u/s 24 of the trial Court cannot be said to be ''any proceeding under this Act.

According to the Learned Counsel, a revision petition is not continuation of the original petition filed in the trial Court under the Hindu Marriage Act, and therefore, the Respondent is not entitled to any litigation expenses there under. In support of his contention, he referred to Jalasutram Annapurnamma v. Jalasutram Ramkrishna Sastry, (1), Daya Aggarwal v. Sohan Lal Aggarwal, (2) In Jalaustram Annapurnamma''s case (supra), the case was of an appeal u/s 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). In that appeal, an application u/s 24 of the Act was made wherein it was considered that whether the appeal could be said to be ''any proceedings under this Act''. Under this circumstance it was held that since the right of appeal is one conferred under the Act, it is ''a proceeding under the Act''. In Daya Aggarwal''s case (supra), it was held that Section 24 can work and is limited and hedged in by the conditions laid down in this Section itself and any order under that Sectoin can be made only ''in any proceedings under this Act''. It was further found therein that even though an application u/s 476 of the Criminal Frocedure Code may be taken as an interlocutory application in proceeding under the Act, it is not by itself a proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act particularly when the proceedings under that Act had admittedly come to an end before that application was made. Thus both these cases are distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Here the husband Madan Lal has filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce u/s 13 of the Act before the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. In that petition an application u/s 24 of the Act was filed on behalf of wife-Respondent. The trial Court allowed maintenance pendentelite at the rate of Rs. 350 per month to the wife and Rs. 150 per month to her. minor son. She was further allowed litigation expenses to the extent of Rs. 1,000. Against the said order, the husband has come up in revision in this Court. During the pendancy of the revision petition, an application u/s 24 of the Act has been moved on behalf of wife-Respondent claiming the litigation expenses for defending the revision petition in this Court which is being contested on behalf of the husband-Petitioner. Thus the sole question to be decided is whether the revision petition filed against the impugned order u/s 24 can be said to be "any proceedings under this Act".

After careful consideration I am of the considered opinion that the revision petition against the impuged order which has been passed u/s 24 of the Act will be deemed to be a proceeding under this Act. "It may be that the appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings as such, but at the same time, the revision-petition has been filed against an order u/s 24 of the Act which was passed in the proceedings under this Act. In this view of the matter, it could not be successfully urged that the Respondent is not entitled to the litigation expenses of this revision petition because this by itself is not ''a proceeding under the Act''. Even in Jalasutram Annapumamma''s case (supra) it has been held "it is a common case that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceeding. The fact that an appeal lies under the CPC against an order in a proceeding under the Act, will not make the appeal any-the-less a proceeding under the Act, for, the appeal also relates to the adjudication in respect of the lights conferred under the Act." On the same analogy the revision petition also relates to the adjudication in respect of the rights conferred under the Act. In that view of the matter, the revision petition cannot be said to be an independent proceeding in that sense for which the Respondent is not entitled to the litigation expenses. For all intents and purposes, it will be deemed to be a proceeding under the Act as it arises out of adjudication of the proceedings under the Act, and will affect the maintenance itself.

In this view of the matter, preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Petitioner fails and the application is allowed and the Respondent is held to be entitled to the litigation expenses of this revision petition which are assessed at Rs. 500.