1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4180 OF 2009 Shri Ravindra Ramchandra Tingare. .. Petitioner Vs Sou. Ashwini Ravindra Tingare. .. Respondent ­­ Shri A.M. Kulkarni for the Petitioner. ­­ CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The Petitioner is the husband and the Respondent is the wife. A Petition was filed by the Petitioner under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for passing a decree of divorce. An application under Section 24 of the said Act of 1955 was filed by the Respondent/wife. The said application was decided by an order dated 15th April, 2008, the operative part of which reads thus:­ “1. Application is allowed. 2. Applicant do pay amount of maintenance of Rs.3,000/­ to respondent and Rs.2,000/­ to her minor son Parth from the date of application.” 2. Thereafter, an application was made by the Respondent/Wife at Exhibit­51 purporting to be an application under DSection 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Code”). By the impugned order, the said application has 2 been allowed and accidental error in the order dated 15th April, 2008 has been corrected by clarifying that under the order dated 15th April, 2008, the maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/­ per month was payable to the Respondent and the maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/­ per month was to be paid to the minor son. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted in exercise of powers under Section 152 of the said Code, the alleged error in the order dated 15th April, 2008 could not have been corrected. He submitted that the order impugned is without jurisdiction. He submitted that the application under Section 24 was decided by the trial Court on 15th April, 2008 without giving an opportunity of adducing evidence. He invited my attention to the applications made by the Petitioner at Exhibit­48 as well as at Exhibit­49. He submitted that the said applications ought to have been allowed. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. The only challenge in this Writ Petition is to an order dated 3rd January, 2009 passed by the trial Court on the application made by the Respondent under Section 152 of the said Code. Perusal of the order passed below the Application at Exhibit ­28 ( Application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 ) shows that the monthly maintenance of R.3,000/­ and Rs.2,000/­ was intended to be granted to the Respondent and to her minor son respectively. The prayer was for grant of interim maintenance per month. 3 It is obvious that there was an accidental error crept in the operative part of the order dated 15th April, 2008 inasmuch as the fact that monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/­ and Rs.2,000/­ was granted was not incorporated in the said order. It was obviously an accidental error. If it is not held as an accidental error, the order dated 15th April, 2008 will appear to be absurd. Hence, this was a fit case to exercise power under Section 152 of the said Code. 5. As far as the grievance made by the Petitioner regarding rejection of the applications at Exhibits – 48 and 49 is concerned, the applications were made at a stage when the applications for grant of interim maintenance were pending. Now the main Petition for divorce is ready for hearing. Notwithstanding the orders passed below the said applications, it will be open for the Petitioner to adduce evidence in support of his case in the main Petition. 6. Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. 7. Hearing of the main Petition is expedited. The trial Court is expected to conclude the hearing of the main Petition on or before 30th June, 2010. (A.S.OKA, J) ash