IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 3319 of 2008
Pendyala Madhav ...... Petitioner
Versus
Chandrika Tripathy ...... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
For the Petitioner : M/s Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
———
th
11/ Dated: 20 April, 2010
1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
is challenging an order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur
in Matrimonial Suit No. 188 of 2007 below an application preferred by the
respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the order
passed by the Family Court is that the petitioner has to pay the maintenance at
the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month during the pendency of the matrimonial suit.
Against this order, the present petition has been preferred.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the facts
and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition
mainly for the following facts and reasons:-
(i) The petitioner has instituted Matrimonial Suit No. 188 of 2007 for the
dissolution of the marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
(ii) Looking to Annexure-4, it appears that the petitioner’s income from
business is more than Rs.80,000/-.
(iii) It is observed by the Family Court that the respondent is having no
source of income and she is engaged in Non-Government Organization as
a part time worker. She is staying, at far away place, in the State of
Orissa, which is 600 kms. away form the trial court.
(iv) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
respondent is working as a Project Officer and she is getting a salary of
Rs. 30,000/- per month.
(v) Looking to the amount of maintenance, which is Rs. 1,000/- per
month, awarded by the Family Court, I am not inclined to interfere with
the interim order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Jamshedpur. Nonetheless, I hereby direct the trial court to expedite the
hearing of Matrimonial Suit No. 188 of 2007 and the Family Court is
directed to not grant unnecessary adjournment so as to bring to the end of
the Matrimonial Suit No. 188 of 2007 on or before 30th December, 2010.
(vi) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assures the cooperation
before the trial court so that the Matrimonial Suit No. 188 of 2007, filed
by the petitioner, can be disposed of within aforesaid time limit.
3. The petition is, hereby, disposed of as dismissed with aforesaid direction.
(D.N. Patel, J)
Ajay/