1 wp2373-11.sxw pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 2373 of 2011 Deepa Pillai ..Petitioner v/s. Manoj Pillai ..Respondent Mr.Abhijit Sarawate for the petitioner . Mr. Narayana Kurup for the respondent. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 28th April, 2011 P.C. : 1. Rule. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent waives service of notice of admission of petitoin. 3. By consent taken up for final hearing. 4. The respondent has filed proceeding for divorce under Hindu 2 wp2373-11.sxw Marriage Act, 1955 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Pune (hereinafter referred to as learned trial Judge) being proceeding Marriage Petition No.635 of 2009. In the said proceeding the petitioner herein filed application under Section 24, 25 and 26 for interim maintenance for her son and for the litigation expenses. The said application at Exhibit 14 was decided by the learned trial Judge by his order dated 6.1.2011. The petitioner herein has filed this writ petition so as to challenge the said order. 5. Apart from the merits of the matter the learned Counsel Mr. Sarawate appearing on behalf of the petitioner pointed out by relying upon the certified copy of roznama that the application at Exhibit 14 was on board before the learned trial Judge on 18.10.2010 and it was adjourned to 6.1.2011 as the arguments on application at Exhibit 14 were concluded. 6. Learned Counsel Mr. Sarawate pointed out that on 6.1.2011 the advocate for the respondent filed an application at Exhibit 31 and several documents through Exhibit 32 being list of said documents. He further pointed out that the said application at Exhibit 14 was 3 wp2373-11.sxw decided by the order dated 6.1.2011. A grievance was made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the documents which were tendered in the court on 6.1.2011 were not supplied to the petitioner and therefore the principles of natural justice have not been followed in as much as petitioner could not deal with the documents which were relied upon by the respondent and tendered in the court on 6.1.2011. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on merits also contended that the petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs. 9000/- per month for the benefit of the child and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-. He pointed out that the impugned order is passed so as to provide maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month as also the litigation expenses. According to him, learned trial Judge should have passed an order in clear cut manner so as to mention the amount towards maintenance and a separate amount towards litigation expenses. He therefore submitted that the impugned order is required to be set aside and that the petitioner should get chance to deal with the documents which have been placed before the court on 6.1.2011 and thereafter the matter can be decided on merits. 7. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted 4 wp2373-11.sxw that the copy of the documents were provided to the Court Shirestedar who was expected to deliver it to the petitioner and according to him this was sufficient compliance as regards filing of the documents and he submitted that the learned trial Judge read those documents and has passed an order. He tried to justify the order dated 6.1.2011 and submitted that the petition should be dismissed. 8. After having gone through the impugned oder as also the roznama and the manner in which the learned trial judge dealt with the matter, I am inclined to observe that principles of natural justice have not been followed and therefore the impugned order dated 6.1.2011 is required to be set aside. Application at Exhibit 14 is required to be restored to the file of the learned trial Judge so that the learned trial Judge can dispose of the matter after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to deal with the documents and advance submissions on all counts. 9. In so far as the merits of the matter are concerned, if at all the learned trial Judge comes to the conclusion that the litigation 5 wp2373-11.sxw expenses were required to be granted, he should have given a specific amount. So far as the maintenance is concerned, he should have granted specific amount so that it would have been convenient for the petitioner to know as to what amount has been awarded towards maintenance and what amount has been awarded towards litigation expenses. The impugned order is not properly passed by the learned trial Judge. The learned trial Judge has not considered aforesaid aspects while passing the order. Hence impugned order is required to be set aside. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated that the advocate on record has collected the copies of the documents at Exhibit 31 and 32 and that he would be able to deal with those documents after the matter is remanded to the learned trial Judge. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, following order is passed to dispose of this petition. ORDER i) Rule is made absolute. ii) Order dated 6.1.2011 passed below Exhibit 14 in Marriage Petition No.635 of 2009 pending on the filed of the learned Joint 6 wp2373-11.sxw Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune is set aside. Iii) Application at Exhibit 14 in Marriage Petition No.635 of 2009 is restored to the file of the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune before whom the marriage Petition No.635 of 2009 is pending. iv) I am told that the next date before the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune is on 17.6.2011. On 17.6.2011 the petitioner shall file a detail reply so as to deal with the documents at Exhibit 31 and 32. If the respondent wants to deal with the said reply, the respondent is free to file the rejoinder. After filing of the affidavits is over as aforesaid, learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune shall hear the learned Advocates on both sides and pass a speaking order. v) If the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune is of the view that the maintenance is to be awarded to the child, he shall specifically mention a particular amount of maintenance. Similarly, if the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune is of the view 7 wp2373-11.sxw that the litigation expenses are to be awarded, he shall specify the amount of money which will be awarded to the petitioner as litigation expenses. vi) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Vii) Learned Counsel for the petitioner shall produce copy of this order before the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune prior to 17.6.2011. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]