JAI RANI Vs. OM PARKASH SAINI
LAWS(DLH)-1983-10-15
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on October 07,1983

JAI RANI Appellant
VERSUS
OM PARKASH SAINI Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

ASHA DEVI VS. POMINDER KUMAR CHHABRA [LAWS(DLH)-2006-9-36] [REFERRED TO]
P S DEVARAJAN VS. R GEETHA [LAWS(MAD)-2000-2-34] [DISSTINGUISHED]
KARUNAKARAN PRAVEEN, VS. M V ROOPA [LAWS(KAR)-2014-7-256] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

A.B. Rohatgi, J. - (1.)The respondent husband brought a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (the Act) against the wife the petitioner. On an application under Section 24 of the Act by the wife the Additional District Judge made an order on 12-5-1980 for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. He ordered the husband to pay Rs. 400.00 as litigation expenses and Rs. 100.00 per month on account maintenance with effect from 18-2-1980, the date of the applica- tion. For payment the Judge fixed 23-5-1980.
(2.)The husband did not pay. So on 26-5-1980, the judge made this order :-
"The file be consigned to record room for the present. The petitioner can revive the petition after complying with order dated 12-5-1980."
The wife made an application for execution of the order of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses under Section 28A of the Act. The Judge issued warrant of attachment for the recovery of litigation expenses and maintenance allowance for the period from' 18-2-1980 to 26-5-198D. But he refused to levy execution for the period after 26-5-1980.
(3.)The wife's .case is that she is entitled to recover trom the husband monthly maintenance allowance for the period even after 26-5-1980 on the ground that the proceedings have not terminated and that she is entitled to monthly maintenance allowance till the determination of the proceedings. The Judge rejected this argument. By order dated 11-2-1981 he decided that there was no liability of the husband to pay maintenance pendente lite after the proceedings were consigned to record room. In other words, he held that the wife was entitled to recover maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 100.00 per month up to the period of 26-5-1980 when the proceedings were consigned to record room but not after that. From the order dated 11-2-1981 the wife has brought this revision petition.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.