Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Panchami Sarkar (Malakar) vs Sunil Kumar Sarkar on 17 December, 2013
Author: Prasenjit Mandal
Bench: Prasenjit Mandal
1 12.13 ab C.O. 3931 of 2013 Smt. Panchami Sarkar (Malakar)
-Vs-
Sunil Kumar Sarkar Mr. Amitabha Ghosh, ... for the petitioner Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner.
This application is at the instance of the wife and is directed against the order No. 30 dated 19.11.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Barasat in connection with Matrimonial Suit No. 17/05 thereby rejecting an application for enhancement of alimony pendente lite and another application for stay of the abovementioned suit.
The husband/opposite party herein instituted the aforesaid suit for divorce and the wife/petitioner herein is contesting the said suit by filing an appropriate written statement. After closure of the evidence on behalf of the husband, after lapse of certain period, the wife/petitioner herein had also adduced evidence on her behalf. At this stage, the wife/petitioner herein had come up before this Hon'ble Court and filed a civil revisional application being C.O. 3187/13 and this Court disposed of the said revisional application on hearing both the sides directing the wife/petitioner herein to adduce evidence after setting aside the impugned orders dated 18.06.2013 and 30.07.2013 respectively. This Court also directed that the trial Court shall fix a date for adducing evidence on behalf of the wife/petitioner herein and then he shall take up the matter on day to day basis hearing without granting any adjournment to either of the parties except in extreme emergent cases till the completion of evidence. This Court also directed that after completion of evidence on behalf of the opposite party, the trial Court shall dispose of the suit within 30 days from the date of completion of evidence. Thereafter, the wife/petitioner herein filed the abovementioned two applications, which were rejected by the impugned order.
I find that the said two applications filed by the wife/petitioner herein are contrary to the order 08.10.13 passed by this Court in C.O.3187/13, which 2 was virtually on consent. This being the position, in my view, the learned trial Judge has rightly rejected both the applications by the impugned order.
Accordingly, in my view, this application is totally devoid of merits and the same is dismissed in limine.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties at an early date.
(Prasenjit Mandal, J)