SHIVILABEN Vs. PRAHLADBHAI ATMARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, the petitioner- original opponent-wife in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 114 of 1985 has questioned the legality and validity of the order below application Ex. 15 by the learned 2nd Joint District Judge at Kheda at Nadiad on 21-11-1987. The impugned order passed by the trial Court at Nadiad is not sustainable in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, and nature of proceedings going on between the parties. There is no dispute about the fact that the present petitioner-original applicant-wife came to be awarded an amount of Rs. 200/- per month by way of interim alimony and the amount of Rs. 560/- by way of costs of the litigation. The opponent original-petitioner in the said suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act failed to comply with the order. With the result, the wife applied to stay the proceedings initiated against the petitioner-wife by the opponent original- petitioner-husband.

(2.) Very purpose of grant of interim alimony the amount of costs under Section 24 of the Act is to see that the party who is helpless and unable to maintain oneself during pendency of the proceedings and who has no sufficient means for fighting the litigation, is awarded interim alimony. Thus this provisions of Section 24 of the Act go to show the objection is to see that the litigation initiated by the other side could properly be defended and interim maintenance could be given to the applicant. Having once found by the trial Court that the party is entitled to such fund of alimony and not paid by the party against whom the order is passed, has no other remedy for recovery of such amount or other remedy and if the proceedings are not stayed as requested by the party in whose favour the order is passed and which is not complied by other party, the very object of Section 24 may be frustrated. The object of Section 24 is to provide necessary funds to the needy spouse to prosecute the proceedings as well as to maintain himself or herself during pendency of the proceedings. The application preferred by the wife to stay the proceeding initiated by the husband, for non-compliance of the order of the court, is rejected without proper examination and appreciation of the facts and Section 24 by trial Court in passing the impugned order. Therefore, impugned order has resulted into miscarriage of justice, requiring interference of this Court even in the revision under Section 115 of the Code. There is no dispute about the fact that the proceedings could be stayed in case of non-compliance of the order passed under Section 24 of the Act, as this Court in the case of Madhuben Goswami v. Mahendra Goswami reported in 17 G.L.R. 422 has made the position very clear.

(3.) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside and the application of the wife at Ex. 15 in the suit submitted on 17-6-1987 is required to be granted. The revision application is required to be allowed. Accordingly it is allowed. Petition allowed.