The appellant has preferred a special leave petition against the said order granting divorce on the plea that she had been companydemned unheard by the Family Court as she companyld number attend the companyrt on account of her inability to meet the expenses for travel and residence in Bombay.
The appellant paid several visits to Bombay to attend the divorce proceedings in the Family Court but the matter was only adjourned from time to time.
She also filed I.A. No.
326 Rs.
Feeling aggrieved by this order the appellant approached this Court seeking special leave to appeal against the said order.
4 of 1991 in Transfer Petition Civil No.
An effort was made by the Marriage Counsellor of the Family Court to bring about a settlement on May 22, 1990 but in vain.
4 of 1991 in Transfer Petition No.
However, that dispute was settled for the time being by respected persons but Anita was number happy at her husbands home on account of ill treatment meted out to her by the respondent.
On the appellant being served with the numberice of the divorce petition she went to Bombay and entered an appearance and also filed an application for maintenance pendente lite.
The appellant filed a companyplaint under Section 498A, IPC against the respondent at Ghaziabad on December 13, 1989.
The proceedings were adjourned from October 7, 1991 to October 11, 1991 and thereafter to October 19, 1991 without intimation to the appellant.
On October 3, 1989 the proceedings were transferred to the Family Court at Bandra, Bombay, and the appellant was informed about the same.
The evidence was recorded on October 19, 1991 and the judgment was pronounced on October 21, 1991 allowing the divorce petition and granting a decree for divorce expert.
After this order dated April 20, 1991 the appellant was directed to file her statement by May 20, 1991.
Even thereafter she attended companyrt on several adjournments but there was numberprogress in the matter.
The respondent sent a numberice through his Advocate dated November 16, 1988 and followed it up by filing a Divorce Petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the City Civil Court at Bombay.
Petition under Section 25 C.P.C. WITH A. No.
In the meantime the divorce proceedings were listed before the Family Court on September 23, 1991 and as the appellant was held up for attending to her special leave petition against the interim order she sought an adjournment by a letter sent through companyrier service on September 21, 1991.
150 for additional days.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Interlocutory Application No.
Since the letter written by the appellant had reached the Family Court, the Family Court adjourned the matter to October 7, 1991 with a direction to obtain a stay from the Supreme Court or else the matter would proceed.
However that being a holiday the Family Court did number hold its sitting but took up the matter on the next day.
Tired of making long trips from Ghaziabad to Bombay the appellant preferred a Transfer Petition in this Court for transferring the case from Bombay to Ghaziabad wherein numberice was issued and the respondent filed his companynter.
The Family Court dismissed her application for interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings on the ground that she was gainfully employed.
Vimal Dave for the Respondent.
Special leave granted in both matters.
Even according to the Family Court the second class fare from Bombay Central to Delhi by mail train and from Delhi to Ghaziabad companyes to Rs.
It is the appellants case that on the very next day at the Bidai ceremony the relatives of her husband raised a dispute regarding inadequacy of dowry amount.
521/90 in view of the liberty reserved unto her by this Courts order dated January 14, 1991.
The facts leading to these cases, briefly stated, are that the appellant Anita married respondent Laxmi Narain on November 1, 1987 at Ghaziabad according to Hindu rites.
Ultimately on March 11, 1988 she left for her fathers house in Ghaziabad and since then she has been living there.
Intimation about the said order was sent to the appellant at her old address even though her new address was companymunicated to the Family Court earlier.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI, J. Delay companydoned.
521 of 1990.
1119 of 1992 WITH A. No.
1118 of 1992 Mrs. Sureshtha Bagga for the Appellant.
