KISHAN LAL Vs. LONGA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the executing court rejecting the applicant's objection that the interim alimony awarded to the non-applicant during the pendency of the suit is not executable as a decree. In as much as the order granting the alimony under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act lapse with the termination of the proceedings under the said Act. He relied on Bhuneshwar Prasad v. Dropta Bai, AIR 1963 MP 259, wherein it was observed that the words during the proceedings are significant. They not only fix the duration of the maintenance allowance but also the time of the payment of the maintenance allowance and the expenses of the proceedings. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings are ordered to be paid under Section 24 of the ground that the spouse in whose favour the order has been made is without necessary means to maintain herself and bear the expenses defending herself. If the payment of this amount is not made before the termination of the proceedings and if the party in whose favour the order has been made can afford to wait only after the proceedings are terminated, then it may be said that the order under Section 24 was not necessary for the protection during the proceedings of the party concerned. On these observations it was argued that if the non-applicant failed to recover the amount of maintenance and expenses the order becomes infructuous and cannot be executed after the termination of the proceedings.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for both parties, I am unable to exceed to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. Section 28-A of the Hindu Marriage Act provides that all decrees and orders made by the court in any proceeding under this Act shall be enforced in the like manner as the decrees and orders of the court made in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction for the time being enforced. It cannot be disputed that order under Section 24 is passed during the pendency of the proceedings under the Act. Therefore it is executable as decree passed by civil court in exercise of original civil jurisdiction. The decision in Bhuneshwar Prasad's case has no application to the facts of the present case. Moreover Section 28-A was then not inserted in the Hindu Marriage Act. The Bombay High Court in Sarla Devi v. Bharat Kumar, I (1988) Divorce and Matrimonal Cases 487, went to the extent of holding that wilful disobedience by the husband to pay the maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings would be guilty of contempt and proceedings for contempt is not vitiated by parallel proceedings under Order 21 Rule 37.

(3.) NO other submission was made. The revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.