BHUNESHWAR PRASAD Vs. DROPTA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER the presentation of an application in the Court of the Additional District judge, Chhindwara, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by the petitioner Bhuneshwar Prasad for restitution of conjugal rights, the non-applicant wife moved the trial Judge for an order under Section 24 of the Act. On this application the learned Additional District Judge made an order directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 75/- to the opponent as expenses of the proceeding and Rs. 20/- per month as maintenance pendente lite. When the petitioner failed to carry out the directions under Section 24, the opponent-wife applied for execution of the order and also prayed that the proceedings initiated on the petitioner's application under Section 9 be stayed till he paid the amount he was directed to under Section 24. The learned Additional District Judge made an order staying the suit till 24th september 1962 and directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance amount and costs of the proceeding before a certain date. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) SHRI Dabir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, argued that the lower court had no power to stay the proceedings on the petitioner's default to pay the amount he was directed to by the order made under Section 24; that Section 24 of the Act did not give any such authority; and that if the petitioner failed to pay the amount he was ordered to, the non-applicant should have taken proceedings for the enforcement of the order in accordance with Section 28 of the Act.

(3.) IN my judgment, this application must be dismissed. Having regard to the object of Section 24 and the language of that provision, there can be no doubt that a matrimonial action under the Act can be stayed by the Court in the exercise of its inherent power for non-compliance with an order under Section 24. The object of Section 24 is clearly to enable the indigent spouse, who has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and for meeting the necessary expenses of the proceeding, to conduct her or his defence in the proceeding. The basis of an order under Section 24 is that the spouse applying under Section 24 is without means. Section 24 clearly contemplates the payment of expenses and maintenance allowance while the rights of the parties are in contest and during the proceedings. As the marginal note indicates, Section 24 is concerned with maintence pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. The words "pendente lite. " mean "while the rights of the parties are in contest. " the section itself speaks of payment of maintenance and expenses of proceedings during the proceedings. It says, the Court may "on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum. . . . . . . . . " the words "during the proceeding" are significant. They not only fix the duration of the maintenance allowance but also the time of the payment of the maintenance allowance and the expenses of the proceeding. The natural meaning of the words