MADAN LAL Vs. MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy sought to be raised in revision here is with regard to the applicability of the provisions of S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to an application for setting aside an ex parte decree for divorce obtained under the Act. The impugned order being of the District Judge, Patiala, awarding Rs. 300/- as maintenance pendente lite and Rs. 600/- as expenses of the litigation to the wife Meena in proceedings for setting aside the ex parte decree for divorce obtained against her by her husband Madan Lal on May 29, 1984.

(2.) Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned that the application for setting aside the ex parte decree has since been allowed and the petition for divorce filed by the husband Madan Lal, has also been dismissed by the District Judge, Patiala, by his order of May 26, 1986 on his failure to pay arrears of maintenance pondente lite and the expenses of the litigation.

(3.) The challenge to the impugned order was founded upon the wholly untenable premises that an application under O.9, R.13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside an ex parte decree for divorce, could not be taken to be proceedings under the Act so as to extend to it the applicability of the provisions of S.24 of the Act. The argument being that while seeking and obtaining a decree for divorce, be it ex parte or after contest, would be "proceedings" under the Act, an application for setting aside such a decree would be one under the Code of Civil Procedure and thus not one under the Act, and therefore, the provisions of S.24 of the Act, would not be available in respect thereof. There is a patent fallacy in this contention inasmuch as,. the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the Hindu Marriage Act, 2955, are there merely to regulate the proceedings therein and not as substantive law separate and distinct from it, as would be apparent from a plain reading of S.21 of the Act, which reads :