RATTAN LAL Vs. PUSHPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, husband Rattan Lal has assailed order dated 22.09.2012 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Executing Court.

(2.) Petitioner had filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the Act) against respondent-wife Pushpa seeking restitution of conjugal rights. During pendency of said petition, trial court, on application filed by the respondent under Section 24 of the Act, granted interim maintenance payable by the petitioner-husband. The main petition under Section 9 of the Act was dismissed as withdrawn. The respondent filed execution petition claiming arrears of maintenance pendente lite granted to her under Section 24 of the Act, vide order dated 14.03.2007. The petitioner-husband filed objections alleging that the respondent-wife was already married with one Madan Gopal on 24.02.1996 and the said marriage still subsisted when marriage between the parties was solemnized, and therefore, marriage between the parties was null and void and it has been so held by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo, in application filed by the wife against the petitioner-husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, vide order dated 11.11.2009 (Annexure P-1), upheld by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. M-23703 of 2011, vide order dated 15.03.2012 (Annexure P-3), and therefore, order of maintenance pendente lite is not executable because there was no valid marriage between the parties. The said objections have been dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated 22.09.2012 (Annexure P-2), which is under challenge in this revision petition.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the aforesaid version of the petitioner, as raised in objections before the Executing Court. I have carefully considered the same. The aforesaid version cannot be accepted for various reasons. Firstly, the petitioner himself filed petition under Section 9 of the Act against the respondent alleging valid marriage between the parties. Consequently, in execution proceedings arising out of the same case, the petitioner cannot turn around and contend that there was no valid marriage between the parties. Secondly, under Section 24 of the Act, maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses can be granted during pendency of any matrimonial proceedings under the Act irrespective of whether the marriage between the parties was valid or void. For example, if a petition under Section 11 of the Act is filed alleging that marriage between the parties was void, during pendency of such petition, maintenance pendente lite can be awarded under Section 24 of the Act, even if subsequently the petition is allowed and marriage between the parties is held to be null and void. Thirdly, order dated 14.03.2007 granting maintenance pendente lite to the respondent has attained finality, and therefore, the same could not be challenged in the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent for execution of the said order. Fourthly, marriage between the parties has not been annulled or declared to be null and void by any decree passed by the Matrimonial Court under the Act.