Kashyap, did u mean to say that the next court date, the judge gave, is in five months? That’s unheard of. Or did u mean the judge has been giving long dates during the past five months?
I’m pretty sure that Adv. Chandrasekhar did not anywhere say that the judge will dispose of ur case before disposing the maintenance application. I usually log into ecourts.gov.in to see how cases proceed and in my area, it seems the judges can chew gum and walk at the same time: both hma24 and the original case proceed side by side. If ur wife wants to proceed with HMA 24 first, she may have the right as I’ve run into many judgements that say that HMA 24 petition needs to be disposed of first before proceeding further in the original case. But it depends on how gutsy ur wife is because she can easily damage her defense by waiting while she unsuccessfully contends that her HMA 24 application be disposed first.
My own inlaws did not agree for MCD and they r after a big alimony now plus a big pendette lite amount. Even though I’ve already given them close to 20 lakhs unconditionally plus about eight or nine lakhs of our gold she already has from us. So I was researching the same stuff and I found these judgments in the favour of HMA 24:
Pramod Saigal vs Amrita Sanghi on 11 October, 2013
5. The main contention of Ms.Anu Narula, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/husband, is that in view of the settled law when the application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of maintenance and litigation expenses is pending, the court cannot compel the petitioner/applicant to file the written statement unless an order is passed in the said application. Thus, according to her the petitioner is expected to file the written statement only after the amount is paid to the petitioner. She referred to a large number of judgments in support of her contentions. It is not necessary to discuss all the judgments because of the reason that I am of the view that each case depends upon its own circumstances.
6. No doubt, in impracticable circumstances of the applicant in the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the court cannot insist the applicant to file the written statement unless the litigation expenses are deposited. However, in case such situation is not available in a particular case then the court can pass the order for filing the written statement in the matter of divorce filed by one of the parties.
Sau. Vanita Pravin Gaikwad vs Sadguru Nagar on 30 September, 2009
12. On this aspect there is one more relevant decision in the case of Vanmala w/o. Maroti Hatkar vs. Maroti Sambhaji Hatkar (1999 (2) Mh.L.J. 297). This was a case where the husband committed default in complying with the order of interim alimony and payment of expenses passed under Section 24 of the said Act. This Court held that in such a contingency, if the offending party is the petitioner, the proceedings of the Petition can be ordered to be stayed. If the offending party is respondent, then the defence of the respondent can be struck out. Thus if compliance is not made by a Petitioner with an order passed under section 24 of the said Act, the proceedings of the Petition can be stayed. Thus, the law laid down by this Court is that unless an application made by the respondent for grant of litigation expenses is decided, the respondent is not even expected to file written statement. If such application is decided in favour of the respondent, it is not expected of the respondent to file the written statement unless order granting litigation expenses is complied with.
Vanmala W/O Maroti Hatkar vs Maroti Sambhaji Hatkar on 13 April, 1999
10. In the instant case, the Matrimonial Court should have adopted positive approach and ought to have compelled the petitioner husband to deposit the arrears of interim alimony and the expenses of the proceedings in the Court within specified time limit and on his failure, the learned Matrimonial Court could have stayed the very petition for divorce for non compliance of the order passed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, provided the act of the husband is deliberate.
Meena Deshpande vs Prakash Shriniwas Deshpande on 15 February, 1983
2. In the entire proceedings excepting para 5 of the trial Court's judgment it does not appear that there was any consideration bestowed upon the entitlement of such wife to seek maintenance pendente lite and the expenses of the proceedings for which proper application was filed supported by the affidavit as available at Exs. 11 and 12. Without deciding such an application, it is indeed difficult to permit the passing of such exparte judgment only because the written statement is not filed, particularly when the allegations on the basis of which relief of nullity and divorce are sought ate serious enough and, before they are accepted, required sufficient and adequate proof. In such matters, looking to the policy of law, it must be observed that the proceedings under Section 24 of the Act have an important bearing with regard to the rights of the defending spouse. Not only the provisions of Section 24 of the Act permit grant of maintenance pendente lite, but also it permits the Court to make an order with regard to necessary expenses of the proceedings. In a given case without provision for the necessary expenses of the proceedings, it would be impracticable to insist upon the defending spouse even to file a written statement. The trial Court, which was bound to decide the application with regard to the maintenance and the expenses. There is, thus, obvious failure to follow the provisions of Section 24 of the Act, and that should be enough to set aside the judgment under appeal and remit the matter back to the trial Court directing it to consider the application filed at Ex. 11 supported by Ex. 12 and then to proceed with the enquiry in the petition according to law.