Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJENDRA TAILOR versus A.D.J.PARBATSAR & ANR.

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RAJENDRA TAILOR v A.D.J.PARBATSAR & ANR. - CW Case No. 940 of 2005 [2005] RD-RJ 1138 (12 July 2005)

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.940/2005

Rajendra Tailor vs. ADJ, Parbatsar and another.

Date : 12.7.2005

HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.

Mr. GL Khatri, for the petitioner.

None present for the respondents.

-----

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as none appeared for the respondents despite service.

The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 15.1.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge,

Parbatsar.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the applicant/non-petitioner even did not pray for interim maintenance and she only claimed travel expenses and despite this fact, the trial court allowed interim maintenance to the non-petitioner. It is also submitted that the trial court did not record any finding about the income of the petitioner and still awarded Rs.750/- per month against the petitioner.

It appears from the impugned order dated 15.12.2004 that the trial court has not considered all these grounds and has not recorded any finding about the income of the petitioner and still awarded maintenance to the rate of

Rs.750/- per month to the non-petitioner. Hence, the order dated 15.12.2004 is non-speaking order and deserves to be set aside.

In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed, the order dated 15.12.2004 is set aside and the trial court is directed to decide the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall continue to pay the maintenance to the non-petitioner till the application is decided by the trial court so that she may not be deprived from contesting the application assuming the contention of the non-petitioner as correct for the time being that she has no source of income as she pleaded in her application.

It is further made clear that this Court has not recorded any finding about entitlement or non-entitlement of the non-petitioner for interim maintenance, The trial court shall, therefore, decide the application uninfluenced by the order of this Court. The trial court shall decide the application within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Copy of order be supplied to the court below by the petitioner and office.

(PRAKASH TATIA), J.

S.Phophaliya


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.