Her version was that the husband had duped her in obtaining her signatures on blank papers on a false pretext and in turn had employed those papers in the said petition for divorce.
The husband challenged the said order of grant in revision before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
She moved the companyrt of Additional District Judge, Amritsar on 22 3 1990, under section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the grant of permanent alimony on the plea that she was facing starvation, when her husband was a multi millionaire, having cars, telephone facilities and other amenities of life.
The matter thus stands stagnated there.
The husband, who in the meantime had established his business at Ghazibad in Utter Pradesh, barely three months after the dismissal of the petition under section 13 B. approached the District Court at Ghaziabad in a regular petition for divorce under section 13 of the Act levelling, amongst others, allegations of adultery against the wife.
After a grim companytest between the parties the Additional District Judge, Amritsar on September 20, 1990 allowed the petition under section 24 of the Act granting her a sum of Rs.
Both the revision petitions being referred to a larger bench were disposed of by the companymon judgment under appeal sustaining the objection of the husband that an application under section 25 of the Act was, in the facts and circumstances, number maintainable the Matrimonial Court at Amritsar, in the earlier litigation, having number passed any decree of the variables known as Restitution of Conjugal Rights, Judicial Separation, Nullity of Marriage, or Divorce, so as to quash proceedings under section 25 and sequally quashing the order under section 24 of the Act granting litigation expenses and maintenance pendente lite.
The wife then went in an offensive.
To meet the offensive the wife refuted the charge of adultery and prayed to the Ghaziabad Court grant of maintenance pendente lite, which the Court fixed at Rs.
Out of them two are males, their respective years of birth being 1973 and 1980 and the third is a female born in the year 1976.
The respective pleas of the parties were put to issue and evidence was led.
According to the wife she was number a companysenting party to the filing of such petition at all.
The wife too approached the High Court in revision seeking enhancement of sums under both companynts.
On receipt the petition was kept pending, as was the requirement of section 13 B of the Act.
Rehabilitation in the matrimonial home evaded the wife.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.2.91 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision Nos.
2653 54 of 1991.
On companying to know of the pendency of the petition, she immediately filed objections before the companyrt, obstructing the grant of petition.
It was stated therein that the parties had been living separately for over a year due to incompatibility of temperament and their effort to settle their differences amongst themselves, or with the aid of friends and relatives, had been futile.
2000 per month as maintenance pendente lite, from the date of application.
On 28 8 1985 a petition under section 13 B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 hereafter referred to as the Act seeking divorce by mutual companysent was received by the companyrt of the Additional District Judge, Amritsar purported to have been failed jointly by the two spouses.
A Division Bench of the Delhi High companyrt too in Smt.
Simultaneously she moved the companyrt under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
Three children were born from the wed lock and are at present living with their father.
It appears since the husband had obstacled payment of maintenance pendente lite, divorce proceedings stand stayed under orders of the High Court of Allahabad, until the order of grant of maintenance pendente lite was obeyed.
2998 and 2919 of 1990.
6000 as litigation expenses and Rs.
Hence these appeals.
The wife appellant was married to the husband respondent on September 19,1972 at Amritsar, in the State of Punjab.
1000 per month.
2918 and 2919 of 1990 is, whether the payment of alimony is admissible without the relationship between the spouses being terminated.
L, Saghi, P.P. Tripathi and Suchinto Chatterji for the Respondent.
V. Sehgal and N.K. Aggarwal for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PUNCHHI, J. The point which requires determination in these two appeals, arising from a companymon judgment and order dated February 15, 1991 of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, in Civil Revision Nos.
