ANJU BALA JAIN Vs. GIRISH KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition raises a question of importance; "whether a wife can file an execution petition claiming maintenance for the period when the divorce petition filed by the husband was lying adjourned sine die due to non-payment of the maintenance fixed by the Court" There are two contradictory views taken by two Benches of this Court. In Jai Rani v. Om Prakash Saini CR No. 386 of 1981 decided on 7th October 1983 reported in 1984, Matrimonial Law Reporter 121 [per a. B. Rohatgi, J] this Court observed that when Court stays the proceedings "sine die" lis comes to an end and the maintenance pendent lite must cease.

(2.) THE other view is expressed in Asha Devi vs. Pominder Kumar Chhabra Ex. F. A. No. 2 of 2003 decided on 7th September 2006 Manu Patra/de8969/2006 [per sanjay Kishan Kaul, J] that the liability of the respondent to pay interim maintenance would not cease till such time as the proceedings are finally decided, so the husband is liable for paying interim maintenance also for the period when divorce petition was lying adjourned sine die.

(3.) IN view of these two contradictory views expressed in two decisions, I consider it would be appropriate that the matter is referred to a larger Bench by the Hon"ble the Chief Justice for finality. The matter is, therefore, sent to hon"ble the Chief Justice for referring the same to a larger Bench. Parties to appear before Hon"ble the Chief Justice on 17th October 2008. Copies of both above referred judgment are attached herewith.