Orissa High Court
Priyadarshini Amrita Panda vs Biswajit Pati .... Opposite on 31 January, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.3134 of 2025
(In the matter of an application Under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India)
Priyadarshini Amrita Panda .... Petitioner
-versus-
Biswajit Pati .... Opposite
Party
For Petitioner : Mr.T.K. Mishra, Advocate
For Opposite : Mr. G.M. Rath, Advocate
Parties
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:31.01.2025(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the
impugned order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the learned
Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in IA no.5 of 2025 arising
out of CP No. 488 of 2018 directing to take up such
application at the time of final adjudication of the case in
an application U/S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act(In short
"the Act").
2. In course of hearing, Mr. Tusar Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioner by reiterating the
provision of Section-24 of the Act submits that the
litigations expenses as meant under this provision is to
provide the party the expenses to maintain the litigation
because the spouse is unable to maintain herself, so also
unable to gather necessary expenses to support for the
proceeding, but the learned trial Court ignoring this
principle has considered that such application can be
adjudicated at the time of final adjudication which is
contrary to the intention of the provision of law as laid
down in Sec. 24 of the Act. Mr.Mishra further submits
that unless the petitioner gets the litigation expenses,
which is the cornerstone of the provision of Section 24
she is unable to maintain the proceeding and thereby,
deferring to decide the application U/S. 24 of the Act
amounts to miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, Mr. Mishra
prays to intervene in the matter.
2.1. On the other hand, Mr. Gouri Mohan Rath,
leaned counsel appearing for OP submits that the
proceeding is continuing since last seven years, but only
to protract the litigation, the wife has filed such an
application at a belated stage, especially when the matter
was posted for argument and the intention of petitioner is
only to protract the litigation and, therefore, the learned
trial Court having not refused the application for grant of
litigation expenses which can be awarded at the time of
disposal of the case, the writ petition challenging the
impugned order merits no consideration. Accordingly, Mr.
Rath prays to dismiss the writ petition.
3. In order to address the rival contention and the
spirit of Section 24 of the Act, this court considers it apt
to extract the provision of Section 24 which reads as
under:-
"24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses
of proceedings--Where in any proceeding
under this Act it appears to the court that
either the wife or the husband, as the case
may be, has no independent income
sufficient for her or his support and the
necessary expenses of the proceeding, it
may, on the application of the wife or the
husband, order the respondent to pay to the
petitioner the expenses of the proceeding,
and monthly during the proceeding such sum
as, having regard to the petitioner's own
income and the income of the respondent, it
may seem to the court to be reasonable:
[Provided that the application for the
payment of the expenses of the proceeding
and such monthly sum during the
proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be
disposed of within sixty days from the date of
service of notice on the wife or the husband,
as the case may be.]"
4. A casual look to the aforesaid provision makes it
imperative that the objective behind the provision of
Section 24 of the Act is for providing sustenance to the
spouse for his/her own maintenance and litigation
expenses, when the spouse has no independent income
sufficient for his/her support and the necessary expenses
of the proceeding. In this case, admittedly the proceeding
has been instituted in the year 2018 and Mr. Mishra on
being asked during the course of argument has admitted
that such an application of the petitioner U/S. 24 of the
Act was earlier rejected by the trial Court on 17.09.2019
which was never challenged before any other forum since
the petitioner is getting regular maintenance out of a DV
proceeding. True it is that the learned trial Court has in
fact not passed any order for grant of litigation expenses
on the fresh application of the petitioner which was filed
on 13.01.2025 just after the matter was posted for
argument. The provision of Section 24 of the Act nowhere
makes it imperative or mandatory to pass any order on
the same day of filing of such petition, but it should be
disposed of at the earliest within sixty days from the date
of service of notice on the other side, however, in this
case when the matter was posted for argument, the
petitioner approached the said court for the second time
for grant of litigation expenses and that too, when she is
already getting maintenance in a DV proceeding, but the
intention/objective of Section 24 of the Act is to provide
sustenance to the spouse, if she/he is unable to maintain
herself during the pendency, so also unable to gather
sufficient fund for the litigation expenses. In this
circumstance, it appears to the Court that the petitioner
is able to maintain herself out of the maintenance amount
so granted in DV proceeding as submitted and when she
has not applied for grant of litigation expenses for all
along about six years after rejection of her such
application which was rejected way back on 17.09.2019,
but was never challenged, it can be simply said that the
learned trial Court has rightly deferred the application for
grant of litigation expenses which is required to be
disposed of within sixty days, to be decided at the final
adjudication of the matter because the matter has
already been posted for argument.
5. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed
on contest, but in the circumstance, there is no order as
to costs.
It is, however, made clear the learned trial
Court shall not further linger the proceeding and dispose
of the case as early as possible by hearing the argument,
but if parties do not cooperate in arguing in the matter,
the Court can pass appropriate order/judgment by going
through the pleadings and evidence on record. The
learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the
observation made in this order which has been passed
purely for disposal of the writ application.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 31st January, 2025/Priyajit
Date: 03-Feb-2025 18:03:54
