Page No.# 1/3 vs Smt. Namita Bhorali Das
2023 Latest Caselaw 3213 Gua

                                                                         Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010034142023




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : CRP(IO)/57/2023

            KAJAL DAS BHARALI AND ANR.
            S/O LATE HANGSHADAR DAS, R/O NIJARAPAR, UDALGURI TOWN, WARD
            NO. 3, P.S.-UDALGURI, DIST-UDALGURI, B.T.R., ASSAM, PIN-784509 (BEING
            UNSOUND MIND REPRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER NO. 2)

            2: ARUP KUMAR BHARALI
             S/O LATE HANGSHADAR DAS
             R/O NIJARAPAR
             UDALGURI TOWN
            WARD NO. 3
             P.S.-UDALGURI
             DIST-UDALGURI
             B.T.R.
            ASSAM
             PIN-78450

            VERSUS

            SMT. NAMITA BHORALI DAS
            W/O SRI KAJAL DAS BHARALI, R/O NIJARAPAR, UDALGURI TOWN, WORD
            NO. 3, P.S.-UDALGURI, DIST-UDALGURI, B.T.R., ASSAM, PIN-784509



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR C GOSWAMI

Advocate for the Respondent :




                                   BEFORE
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                          ORDER

Page No.# 2/3

Date : 21-08-2023

Heard Mr. C. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent.

This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 31.08.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Udalguri in Misc. (J) Case No. 1/2022 arising out of TS No. 23/2021.

The respondent herein filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for granting interim maintenance. On 31.08.2022, the matter was posted for filing an objection by the present petitioner. On that day, the petitioner did not appear and therefore, the court below passed an order asking the present petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- for the wife and Rs. 2,000/- for the daughter. The court below also passed an order directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 20,000/- as one time cost of the suit.

I have considered the submission made by Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. He has placed reliance on the judgment of this court passed in Gauri Dey Vs. Bidhu Bhusan Dey. In that judgment, this court has expressed the view that in the similar matter, the court should try for reconciliation between the parties.

Be that as it may, I find that in the impugned order, the petitioner's case has not been considered. Only the case of the respondent wife has been considered. This court is of the opinion that the impugned order is not a reasoned one and therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside.

The learned trial court is directed to decide the matter afresh after hearing both the parties.

On the next date fixed, both the parties shall appear before the learned Page No.# 3/3

trial court for receiving further order(s).

With the aforesaid direction, the revision petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant