WP 5994 of 10 1 SSK/14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5994 OF 2010 Aanchal Sanjay Sachdev ....Petitioner Versus Sanjay Radhakishan Sachdev ...Respondent Mr. S. M. Sabrad i/b. Mr. R. D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Sachdev, Respondent in person. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 9th AUGUST, 2010. P.C.: Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent in person. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and since short point is involved, the petition is taken up for hearing. 3. The Respondent-Husband filed a petition under section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the Petitioner-Wife for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The Petitioner, during the pendency of the petition filed an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for interim maintenance and litigation/traveling expenses. By the order impugned, the learned Judge of the Family Court No.II, Bandra, directed to merge this application in main petition. So far as the traveling expenses are concerned, the Petitioner was granted an amount of Rs. WP 5994 of 10 2 SSK/14 2,000/- towards to and fro charges with one escort payable from the date of application till disposal of main petition whenever she attended the Court or will attend the Court in future. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent-in-person and having gone through the impugned order, I find that the impugned order does not stand scrutiny of law. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 enable the parties to marriage to apply for interim maintenance during the pendency and disposal of the main petition. If this application is directed to be decided alongwith the main petition, then, the very purpose and object of the provisions under section 24 of the said Act are defeated. The right to claim maintenance and expense during the pendency of proceedings is a special right, irrespective of result of main petition for any relief covered under Sections 9 to 13 of the said Act. The only ground which is stated to be in support of the impugned order is that there are contrary claims and in order to verify the income of both the sides, recording of evidence is necessary. In my opinion, on this ground, the hearing of the application for interim maintenance could not have been postponed. At an interim stage, the parties are always at liberty to lead evidence in the form of affidavit alongwith relevant documents and the Court can decide the application for interim maintenance on the basis of that evidence in the form of affidavits. In my opinion, the interest of justice would be met by directing the Lower Court to decide the Petitioner’s application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the sides. In the WP 5994 of 10 3 SSK/14 circumstances, I dispose of the petition by passing following order: 1. The impugned order, so far as it directs the Petitioner’s application for interim maintenance and the litigation expenses under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, to be merged in main petition no.A-331 of 2008 is concerned, same is quashed and set-aside. 2. The learned Judge of the Family Court is directed to hear the Petitioner’s application for interim maintenance and the litigation expenses under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act as expeditiously as possible and within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 3. So far as second part of the impugned order viz. payment of Rs.2,000/- to the Petitioner towards to and fro charges with one escort is concerned, same is not disturbed. (R. V. MORE,J.)