C. Krishnan vs Ponmudi on 17 July, 1991
3 On this point he relied on E.K. Raghavan v. K.K. Saroja , Smt.Sobhana v. Amar Kania , Mahalingam Pillai v. Amsavalli , Samir Banerjee v. Sujata Banerjee 70 C.W.N. 633, N.Subramaniyam v. M.G. Saraswati .
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.31 seconds)Documents citing
Ellikkal Kuniyil Raghavan vs K.K. Saroja on 26 August, 1986
Malaya Das (Nee) Ghosh vs Basudeb Das on 30 September, 1996
The next decision which is to be considered now is a decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Ellikkai Kunivil Raghavan v. K.K. Saroja. . It is true that in this decision it has been observed by a learned single Judge of Kerala High Court that the court should dispose of a petition under Section 24 on merits notwithstanding the disposal of the proceeding if circumstances do require it. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case it was held that an application for ancillary reliefs must be decided by the court even if the main petition is dismissed by it. The ground on which this observation had been made by the learned Judge was that if Section 24 of the Act is made for payment of maintenance during the matrimonial proceeding then there will be an unbuilt interdiction in the provision prohibiting matrimonial court from ordering interim alimony when main petition stands dismissed. Such will only promote and encourage delaytary disposal of the interlocutory applications particularly applications under Section 24 of the Act. In that case the application under Section 24 was not disposed of and an inordinate delay was made by the court to dispose of the same. Before such disposal of the application under Section 24 the matrimonial proceeding itself was disposed of. In this back ground it was held that the court has a right to dispose of the pending proceeding under Section 24 even if the main petition is disposed of. It has also been observed in the said decision that once an interlocutory application is entertained validly, it has to be disposed notwithstanding the disposal of the main proceeding. Therefore, the view expressed in that decision by the Kerala High Court was also on the basis that since an application had been filed and entertained by the court it is the duty of the court to dispose of the pending application even if the main petition was disposed of. Apart from that for awarding maintenance to any of the married spouses the stages have been made by introduction of different provisions regarding payment of maintenance. Section 24 deals with maintenance during the proceeding. Section 25 deals with payment of maintenance after or at the time of the decree is passed. Apart from that it was also open to a party to approach the court under the Hindu Maintenance and Adoption Act for getting maintenance.
Malaya Das (Nee) Ghosh vs Basudeb Das on 30 September, 1996
The next decision which is to be considered now is a decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Ellikkai Kunivil Raghavan v. K.K. Saroja, . It is true that in this decision it has been observed by a learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court that the Court should dispose of a petition under Section 24 on merits notwithstanding the disposal of the proceeding if circumstances do require it. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case it was held that an application for ancillary reliefs must be decided by the Court even if the main petition is dismissed by it. The ground on which this observation had been made by the learned Judge was that if Section 24 of the Act is made for payment of maintenance during the matrimonial proceeding then there will be an unbuilt interdiction in the provision prohibiting matrimonial Court from ordering interim alimony when main petition stands dismissed. Such will only promote and encourage dilatory disposal of the interlocutory applications particularly applications under Section 24 of the Act. In that case the application under Section 24 was not disposed of and an inordinate delay was made by the Court to dispose of the same. Before such disposal of the application under Section 24 the matrimonial proceeding itself was disposed of. In this background it was held that the Court has a right to dispose of the pending proceeding under Section 24 even if the main petition is disposed of. It has also been observed in the said decision that once an interlocutory application is entertained validly, it has to be disposed notwithstanding the disposal of the main proceeding. Therefore, the view expressed in that decision by the Kerala High Court was also on the basis that since an application had been filed and entertained by the Court it is the duty of the Court to dispose of the pending application even if the main petition was disposed of. Apart from that for awarding maintenance to any of the married spouses the stages have been made by introduction of different provisions regarding payment of maintenance. Section 24 deals with maintenance during the proceeding. Section 25 deals with payment of maintenance after or at the time of the decree is passed. Apart from that it was also open to a party to approach the Court under the Hindu Maintenance and Adoption Act for getting maintenance.
C. Krishnan vs Ponmudi on 17 July, 1991
In the above referred to E.K. Raghavan v. K.K. Saroja, , the O.P. was filed on 26-3-1980, summons was issued on 9-4-1980, the I.A. for interim alimony was filed on 24-11-1980 and the alimony was granted from the abovesaid date 9-4-1980. In that context, the learned Judge observed as follows:
Sreevidya T.R vs Naveen P.Vijayan on 12 August, 2014
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the claim for interim maintenance under Section 24 is
independent of the main reliefs, which will have to be
considered by the Family Court. He also relied upon the
judgment of this Court in Raghavan v. Saroja, (1987(1)
KLT 376).
1