GOURIDEVI PANDA Vs. KISHORE CHANDRA PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question for consideration in this revision petition relates to the consequence of noncompliance of an order of the court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). More precisely stated, whether the court can prohibit the defaulting party to prosecute the proceeding.

(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to the present proceeding may be stated thus:

(3.) THE position is fairly well settled that in a proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the court, in exercise of its inherent power, can stay the proceeding till its order granting interim maintenance and legal expenses under Section 24 of the Act is implemented or pass any other appropriate order for implementation of the said direction. The provisions under Section 28 of the Act, whereunder 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 are enforced, do not stand on the way of the court from passing an order of stay, The salutary principle is that Section 24 of the Act is intended to help a needy and indigent spouse. Wide discretion is vested in the court to enable it to see that the indigent spouse is put in a financial condition in which the party concerned may produce proper material and evidence in the case and that a party is not handicaped in or prevented from bringing all relevant facts before the court for decision of the case because of his or her poverty. See Malkan Rani v. Krishna Kumar : A.I.R. 1961 P&H 42. Therefore, the reason given by the trial court that since the order under Section 24 of the Act is available to be executed by the wife there is no need to insist on its implementation before proceeding further with the suit is erroneous and irrelevant.