HARJINDER SINGH Vs. SUKHDEV KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of C.M. No. 4060-CH of 2007 filed by Harjinder Singh for staying the execution proceedings pending in the trial Court, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant in FAO No. 51-M of 2007), C.M. No. 24-M of 2007 filed by Sukhdev Kaur (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to claim maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses during the pendency of Appeal (FAO No. 51-M of 2007) and C.M. No. 25-M of 2007 filed by Sukhdev Kaur for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses in appeal (FAO No. 65-M of 2007) filed by her.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce by the learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar on 19.5.2004 in a petition filed by the wife. The ground of dissolution of marriage was cruelty, inter-alia, on account of lack of co-habitation as husband and wife. It is also an admitted fact that for the appellant it was second marriage and that he had three children from his first marriage. Even for the respondent, it was her second marriage and she had a daughter from her first marriage.

(3.) THE appellant has sought the stay of the said order, inter-alia, on the ground that with the grant of decree for dissolution of marriage, there is severance of status of the parties and, therefore, respondent is not entitled to any permanent alimony. Reliance is placed upon Malkiat Singh v. Smt. Darshan Kaur, 2002(4) RCR(Civil) 487 : 2002(3) Civil Court Cases 665, Chand Dhawan (Smt.) v. Jawaharlal Dhawan, 1992(3) RCR(Criminal) 534 : (1993)3 Supreme Court Cases 406 and Abbayolla M. Subba Reddy v. Padmamma, 1998(4) RCR(Civil) 314 : AIR 1999 Andhra Pradesh 19. It is also argued that the respondent cannot be granted maintenance every month as well as in lump sum and that a separate suit claiming maintenance filed by the respondent is already pending. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the respondent is entitled to litigation expenses and maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Act, in the proceedings for grant of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act. In support of his contention reliance has been placed upon judgments of this Court in Chuni Lal Gulati v. Krishana Rani, AIR 1983 Punjab and Haryana 241 and Krishan Lal v. Smt. Kamlesh Rani, 1988(1) Punjab Law Reporter 361.