LAWS(APH)-1976-11-13

A SUSEELAMMA Vs. A RAGHUNADHA REDDY

Decided On November 12, 1976
A.SUSEELAMMA Appellant
V/S
A.RAGHUNADHA REDDY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the wife and the respondent is her husband. The respondent filed a petition, O.P. 47/1973 on the Subordinate Judge's Court Chittoor, for restitution of conjugal rights. In that petition, the appellant herein filed I.A. 18/75 for payment of interim maintenance. That petition was ordered on 26-4-1975 and the respondent was directed to pay the appellant Rs 50/- per month as interim maintenance and Rs.75/-for legal expenses. He paid a sum of Rs. 75/- for legal expenses and paid the maintenance for one month- Thereafter, he committed default. The appellant was constrained to take execution proceedings. But inspite of those proceeding she was not able to realise any amount. The petition for restitution of conjugal rights was taken up for trial on 19-3-76 and some witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner. At this stage, the appellant herein filed an application for stay of the trial in O.P. 41/1973 until the arrears of maintenance ordered in I. A. 18/1975 was paid to her.

(2.) The court below dismissed that petition holding that when the order for interim maintenance was made, the court did not impose any condition stating that if the interim maintenance was not paid, the main O.P. would either be dismissed or not proceeded with, anJ in the absence of such a condition the court cannot either stay or postpone the trial of the O.P

(3.) It is against that order this appeal has been filed. Sri Raghu- nadha Reddy, the learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the court below was wrong in holding that it had no jurisdiction to stay the O.P. in the absence of any condition imposed in the order awarding interim maintenance stating that if the interim maintenance is not paid the O.P. would not be proceeded with. He submitted that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are made applicable under section 21 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 to all proceedings of the Act and one of the such provisions being section 151, the Civil Court had inherent jurisdiction under the section to stay the trial of the O.P. if the interim maintenance directed to be paid was not paid. We are inclined to agree with this submission. As stated earlier, section 21 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 provides that all proceedings under the Act shall be "regulated, as far as may be, by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is true that decrees or orders made under the Act can be enforced and the appellant was entitled to execute the decree for interim maintenance, but that remedy is not inconsistent with a request made by her that the O.P. shall not be proceeded until and unless the interim maintenance is paid to her. The grant of the interim maintenance was made in pursuance of the powers under Section 24 of the Act which provides that if the court is of the view that the wife has no independent income sufficient for her support, it may order the husband to pay to her monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to her income and the income of the husband, it may seem to the court to be reasonable. This section is intended to enable the wife or the husband as the case may be) to have sufficient funds to proceed with the O.P. and to maintain herself during the pendency of the O.P. The very purpose of this section will be frustrated if the other party is allowed to proceed with the O.P. ignoring the direction for payment of interim main- tenance In those circumstances, it would be a proper exercise of the jurisdiction under section 151 C.P.C. which is attracted by reason of Section 21 of the Act to postpone the hearing of the O.P. or stay the trial of the O.P. until and unless the order of the court is carried out. It is well settled that the court has inherent jurisdiction to make such orders wihch would make effective the orders passed by it. There is no provision in the Act which says that unless there is a condition imposed while granting interim maintenance that the O.P., would not be proceeded with if the inerim main, tenance is not paid, the court cannot stay the trial of the O.P.