IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18410 of 2011
Jaya Sinha
Versus
Anil Kumar
----------------------------------
7. 09.11.2011 The petitioner wife has filed this writ
application against the order dated 3.9.2008 passed by
Principal Judge, Family Court, Saran at Chapra in
Divorce Case No. 156 of 2006. According to the
petitioner the court below has directed the respondent
to pay only 750/- per month as her expenses of the
proceeding of this case. Inspite of service of notice the
respondent has not appeared.
The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the learned court below has not granted
any opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence in
support of her claim that the respondent earns
50,000/- per month but the learned court below only
on the presumption directed the respondent to pay the
said amount stated above.
From perusal of the impugned order it
appears that the learned court below has not given any
finding regarding the income of the respondent. It
appears that after noting the case of the parties
abruptly directed the respondent to pay 750/- per
month to the petitioner. According to the learned
counsel for the petitioner she is ready to adduce
evidence in support of her case and, therefore, the
2
amount may be enhanced. So far this question is
concerned, it appears that the petitioner never prayed
before the court below. In the impugned order the
court below has also not given any finding and it is
difficult to give any finding regarding the income unless
there is evidence on record.
In view of the above facts and circumstances
of the case, the petitioner is granted liberty to adduce
evidence in support of her case to prove the monthly
income of her husband respondent. The respondent
may rebut the same by adducing evidence. The
petitioner shall file application before the court below
praying for permission to adduce evidence. If such
application is filed, the court below shall consider the
same and allow the parties to adduce evidence. The
court below shall also consider the fact that as to why
the order should not be passed from the date of filing of
the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955. During this period the impugned order dated
3.9.2008 passed in this case shall continue to be
complied with by the respondent.
With the above observation, this writ
application is disposed of.
S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)