Pushpa alias Pooja alias Bhawna vs State of U.P. and Others

Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri A.T. Kulshrestha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri V.K. Goel and Sri S.R. Verma appearing for the Respondents.

By this writ petition the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.11.2004, passed by the District Judge, Mathura, allowing the civil revision filed by Respondent No. 3 against the order dated 7.5.2004 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) allowing an application filed by the Petitioner u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for interim mandamus and litigation expenses. A petition for divorce has been filed by the Respondent No. 3 against the Petitioner which is registered as Marriage Petition No. 653 of 2002, Shiv Kumar Gautam v. Smt. Puja Petition No. 653 of 2002. The Petitioner Smt. Puja filed an application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the grant of interim maintenance and expenses for litigation. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) by an order date 7.5.2004, allowed the application of the Petitioner u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and directed for payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,200 per month and Rs. 5,000 as litigation expenses and Rs. 150 as expenses for attending the date in the case. Against the order dated 7.5.2004, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) a civil revision has been filed by the Respondent No. 3 which revision has been allowed by the impugned judgment dated 27.12.2004. The revisional court by the impugned judgment set aside the order of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and directed the learned Additional Civil Judge to decide the application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act afresh. The revisional court while allowing the revision held that the learned Additional Civil Judge without recording any finding regarding income of the Respondent No. 3 has directed for payment of maintenance which judgment is perverse and cannot be sustained.

One of the questions which have arisen in the writ petition is as to whether the revision filed by the Respondent No. 3 against an order u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was maintainable u/s 115 of the Code of CPC or not. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the revision filed by the Respondent No. 3 was not maintainable u/s 115 of the Code of CPC hence the order is liable to be set aside. It is contended that the power of revision after the amendment made in the Code of CPC with effect from 1st July, 2002 can only be exercised by the High Court and the district court has no jurisdiction to exercise any revisional jurisdiction u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sri Kulshreshtha further contended that the proceedings u/s 24 of the Act is not the original proceedings hence the power u/s 115 of the Code of CPC cannot be exercised. Lastly it has been contended that the order of interim maintenance passed u/s 24 of the Act is only interlocutory order and no revision lies against any interlocutory order. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments, namely, Smt. Madhvi Sirothia v. Narendra Nath Sirothia, 1980 AWC 45; Ram Babu v. IInd Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur and Anr. 1982 AWC 608; Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and Ors., 2003 (3) AWC 2198 and Mahesh Chand v. Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad and Ors., 2002 (49) ALR 330.

Sri V. K. Goel, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 has submitted that the revision was fully entertainable by the learned District Judge in view of the U.P. amendment made in Code of CPC by U.P. Act No. XIV of 2003. He contended that the power of revision has rightly been exercised by the District Judge. Reliance has been placed by Sri Goel on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in Smt. Subhasini v. B. R. Umakanth AIR 1981 Kar 115 and Narendra Kumar Mehta v. Smt. Suraj Mehta, AIR 1982 AP 109.

Sri V. K. Goel further contended that the revisional court has rightly interfered with the order of the Civil Judge since without recording any findings with regard to income of the Respondent No. 3 order for paying interim maintenance was passed.

I have considered the submissions of counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

Application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been allowed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) by order dated 7.5.2004 directing for payment of interim maintenance and litigation expenses. Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides:

Application of Act No. 5 of 1908.-Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act and to such rules as the High Court may make in this behalf, all proceedings under this Act shall be regulated as far as may be by the Code of CPC 1908.

Section 28 of the Act as amended by the Act No. 68 of 1976 provides for appeal from decrees and orders. Section 28(2) provides that the orders made by the Court in any proceeding under the Act u/s 25 or 26 shall be appealable if they are not interim orders. From the provisions of Section 28 of the Act as amended by Act No. 69 of 1976 it is clear that the orders passed u/s 24 are not appealable u/s 28.

By virtue of Section 21 of the Act the proceedings under the Act are subject to revisional jurisdiction. Section 115 has been amended by the U.P. Act No. XIV of 2003. Section 115 as amended by the U.P. Act No. XIV of 2003 is extracted below:

Re-vision. - (1) A superior court may revise an order passed in a case decided in an original suit or other proceeding by a subordinate court where no appeal lies against the order and where the subordinate court has-

(a) exercised a jurisdic-tion not vested in it by law ; or (b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested ; or (c) acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

(2) A revision application under Sub-section (1), when filed in the High Court, shall contain a certificate on the first page of such application, below the title of the case, to the effect that no revision in the case lies to the district court but lies only to the High Court either because of valuation or because the order sought to be revised was passed by the district court.

(3) The superior court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made except where,-

(1) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding ; or (2) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made.

(4) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the superior court.

Explanation I.-In this section,-

(i) the expression ''superior court'' means-

(a) the district court, where the valuation of a case decided by a court subordinate to it does not exceed five lakh rupees.

(b) the High Court, where the order sought to be revised was passed in a case decided by the district court or where the value of the original suit or other proceedings in a case decided by a court subordinate to the district court exceed five lakhs rupees;

(ii) the expression "order" includes an order deciding an issue in any original suit or other proceedings.

Explanation II. - The provisions of this section shall also be applicable to orders passed, before or after the commencement of this section, in original suits or other proceedings instituted before such commencement.

The first submission of the Petitioner''s counsel is that on the strength of Section 115 as amended by Act No. 46 of 1999 the power of revision can be exercised only by the High Court. It is true that by Act No. 46 of 1999 Section 115 has been amended which gives jurisdiction to the High Court to call for record of any case which was decided by any court subordinate to such High Court. Section 115, Code of CPC has been amended by U.P. Act No. XIV of 2003 after presidential assent which is enforced with effect from 22.3.2003. The relevant provision regulating the revisional jurisdiction in the State of U.P. is the provision of Section 115 as amended by the U.P. Act No. XIV of 2003 which was enforced at the relevant time when the revision in the present case has been filed against the order of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) dated 7.5.2004. Section 115 of the Code of CPC as applicable in the State of U.P. gives powers to the High Court as well as to the district court to exercise revisional jurisdiction. The power of the High Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction is with regard to original suit or other proceedings in a case decided by a court subordinate to the district court valuation of which exceed rupees five lacs. The first submission of the counsel for the Petitioner thus cannot be accepted.

In Smt. Madhvi Sirothia v. Narendra Nath Sirothia(supra) learned single Judge of this Court took the view that u/s 115 of the Code of CPC the word "proceeding" occurs along with the word "suit" which means that the proceeding must be an original proceeding other than a suit. The Court held that the proceedings u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was merely an interlocutory proceeding and not an original proceeding hence revision is not maintainable.

The judgment of Smt. Madhvi Sirothia v. Narendra Nath Sirothia (supra) came for consideration before this Court in another case namely, Ram Kishan Prajapati v. Smt. Narabad and Ors., 1998 ACJ 984. Another learned single Judge after considering the judgment and several other judgments of this Court and the Apex Court took the view that the revision is maintainable against an order passed u/s 24 of the Act. The judgment of Smt. Madhvi Sirothia v. Narendra Nath Sirothia (supra) was held to be per incuriam. Following was held in paragraphs 29, 30 and 31.

The Allahabad view is no longer a good law after the Supreme Court in Major S.S. Khanna Vs. Brig. F.J. Dillon, and Baldevdas Shivlal and Another Vs. Filmistan Distributors (India) P. Ltd. and Others, had held that the word "case" is not restricted to litigation in the nature of a suit but includes all proceedings in which the jurisdiction on a civil court is invoked for the determination of a claim or right legally enforceable and that revision is maintainable against interlocutory orders passed in a suit.

The Parliament while amending Section 115 by the 1976 Amendment had adopted the meaning given by the Supreme Court as above by adding the explanation seeking to define the word "case". Thus, a contrary meaning than that of what has been given by the Supreme Court cannot be accepted in interpreting the expression suit or other proceeding as has been done in the case of Smt. Madhvi Sirothia (supra).

Since the said ratio has been laid down in ignorance of the decision on the subject, referred to above, the said decision can very well be treated as per incuriam and such I am unable to persuade myself to follow the said decision and accordingly with deep respect I hereby record my disagreement with the ratio decided therein. Thus, from the foregoing reasons it appears that revision is maintainable before the learned District Judge.

The Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Smt. Subhasini''s case (supra) has also taken the view that the revision is maintainable u/s 115 of the Code of CPC against an order passed u/s 24 of the Act. Another Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Narendra Kumar Mehta''s case (supra) after considering the provisions of Section 24 of the Act held that the revision is maintainable u/s 24 of the Act. Following was laid down in paragraph 14:

However, the Court which made the order is the I Ind Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. It is a civil proceeding disposed of by a court subordinate to the High Court. The High Court has powers of superintendence in respect of matters pending before the civil courts both under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as well as u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 115 of the Civil P.C. enables the High Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction in all civil matters pending or disposed of by a court subordinate to it wherever that subordinate court appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, provided no appeal lies. As no appeal lies against an order u/s 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the High Court may exercise its revisional jurisdiction u/s 115 of the CPC Code. We therefore, proceed to consider both these appeals as if they are revision petitions filed in this Court by the respective parties. These two appeals shall be numbered as civil revision petitions.

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides that wherein any proceedings under this Act it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support, it may on the application of the wife or the husband order the Respondent to pay to the Petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the Petitioner''s own income and the income of the Respondent, it may seem to the Court to be reasonable. An application u/s 24 of the Act can be entertained in any proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The purpose of granting maintenance is to sustain the spouse during the pendency of the proceeding. The order passed u/s 24 disposing of the application continues to operate till the proceedings are finalised. An order u/s 24 of the Act though interim in nature but finally disposes of the question of interim maintenance to which spouse is entitled during pendency of the proceeding. As noted above, by virtue of Section 21 of the Act provisions of the Code of CPC are applicable in the proceedings under the Act and the revisional jurisdiction can very well be exercised by a district court with regard to a case, valuation of which is less than rupees five lacs. In the present case, the impugned order was passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) which is a court subordinate to district court. This Court in the case of Ram Kishan Prajapati (supra) has held that the revision is fully maintainable against an order passed u/s 24 of the Act. The Division Bench judgment of Karnataka High Court in Smt. Subhasini''s case (supra) and the Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Narendra Kumar Mehta''s case (supra) has also taken the same view that the revision is maintainable against an order passed u/s 24 of the Act.

The judgment of the Apex Court relied by the counsel for the Petitioner in Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and Ors. (supra) lays down that the revision is not maintainable against an interlocutory or interim order. The Apex Court while considering provisions of Section 115 of the Code of CPC made following observation in paragraph 32:

A plain reading of Section 115, as it stands makes it clear that the stress is on the question whether the order in favour of the party applying for revision would have given finality to suit or other proceeding. If the answer is "yes" then the revision is maintainable. But on the contrary, if the answer is "no" then the revision is not maintainable. Therefore, if the impugned order is of interim nature or does not finally decide the lis, the revision will not be maintainable. The legislative intent is crystal clear. Those orders, which are interim in nature, cannot be the subject matter of revision u/s 115.

As noted above, the order passed u/s 24 disposes of finally the issue of interim maintenance to a spouse during pendency of proceedings. After passing the order u/s 24 of the Act nothing more is required to be done with regard to question of interim maintenance during pendency of proceedings and the fact is that the order passed u/s 24 finally disposes the application for interim maintenance ; hence as laid down by the Apex Court in above quoted paragraph the revision shall be maintainable against an order u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner during the course of submission has also relied on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Jupiter Chit Fund (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Dwarka Diesh Dayal and Ors., 1979 All LJ 685. The Full Bench in the above case has considered the word "or other proceedings". The Full Bench held that the words "or other proceedings" have to be read ejusdem generis with the words "original suits" and they cannot include appeals or revisions. The Full Bench held that the order passed in the appeal or revision are not subject to revisional jurisdiction u/s 115, Code of Civil Procedure. The above Full Bench judgment does not help the Petitioner in the present case.

From perusal of the order dated 7.5.2004, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) it is clear that the Additional Civil Judge noted the submissions of both the parties including the details given by the Petitioner regarding income of the Respondent No. 3 but without recording any definite finding regarding income of the Respondent No. 3 order has been passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) for payment of interim maintenance. Section 24 of the Act does require consideration of income of the Petitioner as well as that of the Respondent No. 3 before passing any order for maintenance pendente lite and expenses. The revisional court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in setting aside the order of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division). Sufficient ground was made out within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of CPC for exercise of jurisdiction by the revisional court.

I do not find any error in the order of the revisional court warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The revisional court vide its order dated 27.11.2004, has directed the court below to decide the application u/s 24 of the Act afresh. In the facts of the present case it is in the interest of justice that the application filed by the Petitioner u/s 24 of the Act be decided expeditiously. It is directed that the application of the Petitioner u/s 24 be disposed of by the court below expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

Subject to above direction, the writ petition is dismissed summarily.