JUDGMENT R.C. Deepak, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by Smt. Shashi Kala for quashing the orders dated 28.1.2002 and 1.8.2003 passed by the Courts below by which the courts have refused to award maintenance allowance to her.
2. Counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and affidavit regarding the facts of the case have been filed.
3. Heard Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned counsel for the respondent, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
4. The facts of this case are not only peculiar but also constitute breach of mutual trust. The petitioner appeared to have refused the company of her husband on the ground that there was alleged demand of dowry, that harassment and torture was extended to her in this regard. The criminal case relating to the alleged offence is pending. It is further alleged by the petitioner that her father-in-law Daya Shankar forced her to have illicit relation with him but she refused to do so. She was pregnant. Her father-in-law got her admitted in the hospital where her pregnancy was terminated. The husband of the petitioner filed divorce suit wherein the petitioner filed counter affidavit and counter claim. Both of them agreed to have divorce and submitted an application to this effect but there were certain conditions of the petitioner to accept the divorce. The divorce suit was allowed treating the application to be . a consent but it was in fact not an unconditional consent. There were certain conditions which were not taken into consideration by the court A first appeal against the decree of divorce is pending before this Hon'ble Court. The counter claim of the petitioner is still pending un-disposed. She is getting Rs. 500/- as interim maintenance allowance in that proceeding but the amount so received is a pendentelite maintenance.
5. The courts below ought to have taken into account the circumstances and the reasonable cause of the refusal of the petitioner to live with the husband but the courts below committed gross illegality in ignoring the very relevant cause and circumstances as alleged to refuse to live with the husband and disallowed the maintenance allowance of the petitioner on the solitary ground that she was living separately from her husband without any reasonable cause. These facts and circumstances are such in nature which in no way should have been ignored by the courts below while deciding the maintenance proceeding.
6. In the above view of the matter, taking the entire facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, I arrive at an irresistible conclusion that in the interest of justice and equity both the impugned orders dated 28.1.2002 and 1.8.2003 are necessarily required to be quashed and are accordingly quashed.
7. The matter is remanded back to the court below to proceed expeditiously with the proceeding and decide the same on merit.
8. I find it expedient to grant an interim maintenance allowance a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the petitioner. The respondent Vivekanand shall pay Rs. 1,000/- per month as interim maintenance allowance to the petitioner (Smt. Shashi Kala) from the date of this order till the final disposal of the maintenance proceeding. The money shall be deposited with the court below and the court below shall release the amount in favour of the petitioner.
9. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.