KESHAV LAL Vs. MAYA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING dissatisfied by the order dated 29. 3. 1995 passed in Execution Case No. 74-A/88 by the First Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Durg, observing that the wife was entitled to claim maintenance from the present applicant-husband, the husband has preferred this revision petition.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision petition are that in a suit filed by wife, the Trial Court granted a decree for divorce on 1. 8. 1990, but did not pass any orders on her allegation in relation to Section 27 of Hindu Marriage Act regarding return of the property. An appeal against the said judgment and decree was preferred before the High Court. The High Court maintained the decree for divorce but however, remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for deciding the questions raised by the wife regarding the property. The judgment was delivered by the High Court in First Appeal No. 199/90 on 21. 7. 1992. After the matter was remanded back to the Court below, it decided the matter finally and the rights of the parties under Section 27 were also decided by its judgment dated 12. 9. 1994. After the matter was finally concluded, the wife moved an application for execution pleading inter alia that as an order under Section 24 was passed in her favour in the suit by the Trial Court, she would be entitled to claim maintenance from the husband till final disposal of the matter i. e. after the remand upto 12. 9. 1994. The husband opposed the said prayer and submitted before the Court below that the order passed under Section 24 was co-terminus with the final order passed in the civil suit therefore, the wife would not been titled to claim any maintenance beyond 1. 8. 1990. The Trial Court over-ruled the said objection and held that the wife would be entitled to maintenance upto 12. 9. 1994. Being dissatisfied by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision petition.

(3.) MR. P. S. Das, learned Counsel for the applicant placing reliance upon a judgment of Rajasthan High Court reported in the matter of Bukan Kanwar v. Ajit Chand, AIR 1961 Rajasthan 51, submitted that the order passed under Section 24 would lose its efficacy on termination of the lis before the Trial Court and unless an Appellate Court passes an order or an order under Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act passed in favour of the wife, the wife would not be entitled to any maintenance beyond 1. 8. 1990. Mr. Agrawal learned Counsel for the non-applicant placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in the matter of Dwaraka Prasad v. Krishna Devi, 1986 JLJ 179, submitted that as Section 24 has been enacted to help the weaker party, the order shall remain in force till the lis is finally disposed of. He submits that the word 'proceeding' used under Section 24 of the Act would cover an 'appeal', 'execution' or 'revision' everything in its sweep, therefore, even if there was no order in appeal the non-applicant/wife would be entitled to claim maintenance.