Partly allowed

Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh v. Gunja Devi

Patna HC18 Aug 2015CWJC/4640/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court accepted the petitioner's submissions that he had complied with interim maintenance directives while the respondent remained inactive. The court confirmed the amounts and directed the trial court to dispose of the pending matrimonial suit expeditiously to avoid further delay in delivery of justice.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of; interim maintenance and litigation costs confirmed; trial court directed to dispose of the pending matrimonial suit expeditiously.

Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh Vs Gunja Devi — Maintenance and Alimony | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4640 of 2011

¶2

====================================================== 1. Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh S/O Sri Rajdeo Singh R/O VillageNarauli, P.S.- Bakhtiyarpur, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. Gunja Devi D/O Late Kamo Singh R/O Village-Sirsi,P.S.- Bakhtiyarpur, Distt.- Patna .... .... Opp.Party/ Respondent ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : None

¶3

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER

¶4

6 18-08-2015 Heard Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh for the petitioner. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent.

¶5

The previous orders also indicate that the opposite party/respondent defaulted in appearing before this court in the present proceeding .

¶6

The petitioner filed Matrimonial case no. 341 of 2008 for annulling the marriage between him and the respondent solemnized on 8.12.2007. An application was filed by the opposite party under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to which rejoinder was filed by the petitioner. The learned Family Court by order dated 13.01.2011 disposed of the said application by directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as adinterim maintenance to the opposite party from the date of filing

¶7

Patna High Court CWJC No.4640 of 2011 (6) dt.18-08-2015

¶8

2/3

¶9

of the petition and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost in one lump sum. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition was filed wherein this court by order dated 03.08.2011 while issuing notice to the respondent observed as under:-

¶10

“In the meanwhile, the amount of ad interim maintenance is reduced to Rs. 1500/per month from the date of passing of the order dated 13.1.2011. The petitioner would deposit the aforesaid amount in five equal monthly instalments. The litigation cost is also reduced to Rs. 7000/- from Rs. 10,000/. The trial court is directed to proceed to dispose of the aforesaid Matrimonial Suit No. 341 of 2008 expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order as the evidence on behalf of the petitioner has already been adduced.”

¶11

As noticed above, no one has appeared on behalf of

¶12

the respondent although she entered her appearance.

¶13

A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. On perusal whereof it appears that in the light of the order of this court dated 03.08.2011 the petitioner has deposited on different occasions a sum of Rs. 4,000/- on 22.09.2011, Rs. 4,000/- on 17.10.2011 and thereafter a sum of Rs. 4,000/- on 05.01.2012. In para 6, it has been stated that a sum of Rs. 12,000/- was deposited on 13.02.2012 out of which a sum of Rs. 28,000/- has been withdrawn by the respondent. In para 8 the

¶14

Patna High Court CWJC No.4640 of 2011 (6) dt.18-08-2015

¶15

3/3

¶16

petitioner has stated about the further deposits of the amount. It has been stated on the basis of these statements that a sum of Rs. 1,500/- as directed by this court is being regularly paid/deposited for use by the respondent.

¶17

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the amount has been deposited as directed by this court under order dated 03.08.2011 but the trial of the case has not progressed as the respondent is not taking interest although the case is fixed for final argument.

¶18

Having regard to the submissions and the facts disclosed in the supplementary affidavit and also taking note of the order dated 03.08.2011 the application is disposed of. The interim maintenance amount as well as the litigation cost as directed under the order dated 03.08.2011 is confirmed. The trial court shall now proceed to dispose of the pending Matrimonial Suit expeditiously without further loss of time.

¶19

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶20

Shyam/-

¶21

Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh v. Gunja Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Singh v. Gunja Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Singh Vs Sanju Kumari

Kriti Kant Singh Vs Sri Madan Singh and Ors.

Raj Kishore Rai Vs Bishwambhar Kr.Rai and Ors.

Prabha Devi Vs Ramjee Prasad and Ors.

Asha Devi Vs Anand Kumar

Smt. Shobha Kumari and Anr. Vs Ranjit Sao and Ors.