NAREDLA JAYASRI Vs. N. RAVI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The respondent -husband sought a decree of divorce in FCOP No. 218 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court -cum -III Additional District Judge, Warangal. While so, the petitioner filed O.P. No. 158 of 2011 on the file of the same Court seeking maintenance. Therein, she filed I.A. No. 144 of 2011 for grant of monthly interim maintenance for her daughter and herself along with the daughter's educational expenses. The Family Court, by its order dated 07.05.2013, granted interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/ - each per month to the petitioner and her daughter and Rs. 10,000/ - towards legal expenses. Aggrieved by this order, both parties approached this Court. This Court, by order dated 02.06.2014, dismissed CRP No. 3177 of 2013 filed by the respondent -husband and partly allowed CRP No. 4061 of 2013 filed by the petitioner -wife. Thereby, the interim maintenance payable to the daughter was enhanced to Rs. 10,000/ - per month and she was also held entitled to Rs. 50,000/ - towards the cost of a laptop/computer. The interim maintenance granted by the Family Court to the petitioner -wife was confirmed. A time frame was also fixed for payment of the cost of the laptop/computer. It appears that the respondent -husband, having suffered this order, failed to comply with it. Thereupon, the petitioner -wife filed I.A. No. 63 of 2014 in the divorce OP filed by the respondent -husband, invoking the inherent powers of the Family Court under Section 151 CPC read with Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, to stay further proceedings in the divorce OP until the respondent -husband complied with the directions of interim maintenance. By order dated 25.06.2014, the Family Court dismissed this IA leading to the filing of this case under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) THIS Court, while ordering notice before admission on 25.07.2014, granted interim stay of further proceedings in the divorce OP for four weeks. The said order was extended thereafter from time to time. Upon notice, the respondent -husband entered appearance through counsel. Arguments having been heard at length, the matter is amenable to disposal at the admission stage.

(3.) NOW , a look at the judgments cited by Ms. Pingali Lakshmi, learned counsel. In VANMALA, w/o. MAROTI HATKAR Vs. MAROTI SAMBHAJI HATKAR AIR : 1999 BOMBAY 388, the Bombay High Court was dealing with the question as to what should be the approach of the Matrimonial Court in the matter of enforcement of its order with regard to interim alimony. The husband had filed a petition for divorce and the wife had filed an independent application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for interim alimony, whereupon an order was passed for payment of a particular sum per month to the wife and daughter. The husband however failed to pay the interim alimony. The application filed by the wife seeking intervention of the Court for a direction to pay arrears of maintenance was however rejected, directing the wife to file execution proceedings for recovering the maintenance arrears. The Bombay High Court however found fault with this approach of the Matrimonial Court. The observations of the Bombay High Court in this regard are of relevance and are extracted hereunder.