MANOHAR LAL Vs. USHA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has a grievance that the learned Trial/Executing Court ought to have refrained from granting the impugned order in view of the announced pendency of a matter before this Court on the revisional side. The plea raised is that the non-grant of a stay order by this Court does not affect the validity of the plea raised and a subordinate Court must unnecessarily stay its hands off the moment the pendency of the matter before a higher Forum is announced. Reliance, in support of the advocated view, is placed upon, Kishor v. Preeti,2007 2 CCC 512.

(2.) I have not been able to persuade myself to accept the plea. The reasons therefore are as under:

(3.) It is apparent from the record that a divorce plea filed by the petitioner-husband against the respondent-wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge, vide order dated 04.11.2009. It was for realization of the arrears of the maintenance pendente lite and the litigation expenses that the execution application was filed by the respondent-wife. The award of maintenance pendente-lite and the litigation expenses had been ordered by the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 05.09.2009. The respondent-wife had been thereby held entitled to maintenance pendente-lite at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month (with effect from the institution of the divorce petition) and the litigation expenses of Rs. 2100/-. The proceedings of the divorce petition were adjourned on 05.09.2009 to 12.10.2009 and the petitioner-husband was directed to pay up on the next date of hearing. The order was not complied with and the matter was again adjourned to 04.11.2009 with a similar direction. On that date too, the order was not complied with and the defence of the petitioner was ordered to be struck off. As a consequence thereof, the divorce petition was dismissed by the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 04.11.2009.