IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 24.7.2006 Coram: The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN C.R.P.(PD) No.1529 of 2004 M.Kanagaraj .. Petitioner/Respondent/Petitioner. vs. 1.Jeeva .. Respondent/Petitioner/Respondent. 2.Minor Madhavan S/o M.Kanagaraj Minor rep. by Next Friend and Mother Jeeva. .. Respondents Revision Petition filed against the order dated 11.6.2004, in I.A.No.9/2004 in H.M.O.P.No.88/2003, on the file of the Sub Judge, Tirupattur. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ragavachari For Respondents : No Appearance ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 11.6.2004 passed in I.A.No.9/2004 in H.M.O.P.No.88/2003 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur. 2. The husband who filed H.M.O.P.No.88/2003 on the file of Sub-Judge, Thirupathur for restoration of conjugal rights is the revision petitioner before this court. The 1st respondent/wife filed I.A.No.9/2004 under Sec.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance for herself and for her 4 years old minor son and also litigation and medical expenses. By order dated 11.6.2004, I.A.No.9/2004 was allowed exparte granting interim maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month each to the wife and the son, a sum of Rs.2000/- for litigation expenses and another sum of Rs.1500/- for medical expenses. Aggrieved against the order dated 11.6.2004 the husband has filed this Civil Revision Petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondents despite the notice having been served on them. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner was not pressing the main petition itself, i.e., H.M.O.P.No.88/2003 there was no question of passing any orders for maintenance in I.A.No.9/2004. He relied on the judgment of this court reported in 1989-I-L.W. 342 (Ranganatham v. Shyamala). 5. The Sub-Judge on 11.6.2004 passed the order for maintenance after considering the fact that even though the husband is not pressing the main O.P., no order of dismissal is passed till that date. Thereafter he proceeded to pass the order under challenge before me to avoid the starvation of the wife and the tender aged child. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that when the husband is not pressing the main O.P., orders should have been passed in the O.P. only by dismissing the same and not in the Application for maintenance. I am unable to accept this contention. The matrimonial court has got power to award maintenance and litigation expenses under Sec.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act even if the main petition is dismissed or disposed of. I draw support for this proposition in the judgment of this court reported in 1997 (III) CTC 442 (R.Kuppusamy v. Kangalakshmi), wherein the court held as follows:- "6. Petitioner seriously opposed the maintainability of the execution petition and the right of the respondents herein to recover the amount. The main objection raised was that when the main petition for restitution of conjugal rights itself stands dismissed, order passed on the interlocutory applications also ceases to have any force and, therefore, inexecutable. 7. The said contention of the petitioner was rejected by the lower Court, and the execution was allowed to proceed. That order is challenged in this Revision. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner repeated his argument as put forward before the executing court, i.e., the order on interlocutory application ceases to have any force after the main petition itself stands dismissed. 9. After hearing learned counsel on both sides, I feel that the said argument cannot hold good. In Krishnan v. Thailambal, 1969 (I) M.L.J. 328, a similar question came for consideration. There, after getting an order of interim maintenance, the main application was allowed to be withdrawn. The person in whose favour interim order was passed, sought to implement the interim order. The question was, when the main application has been allowed to be dismissed as withdrawn, whether the interim order could be executed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ A learned Judge of this Court (Justice K.S.Venkataraman) held thus:- "Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act contains no limitation that an order for interim maintenance and expenses made thereunder will cease to have force if the husband against whom the order is passed chooses to withdraw the proceedings for nullity of marriage initiated by him. When the husband chooses to drag the wife to the Court by filing a proceeding and if it is shown that the wife has no independent income, the husband must necessarily provide her with interim maintenance and the necessary expenses and he cannot be allowed to wipe out this liability after the order is passed by choosing to withdraw from the petition. His being allowed to do so would only amount to harassment of the wife, for the expenses might have already been incurred by the wife. Section 24 applies not merely to the respondent in the main petition but could also be invoked by the petitioner in the main petition itself, whether it be the wife or the husband. When the provision is of such a far reaching character, it would defeat the purpose of the provision if the court were to hold that the benefit of the section is to depend on the caprice of the petitioner in not choosing to proceed with the main petition." A Division Bench of the Mysore High Court has also taken a similar view in the decision reported in B.M.Myuniratnam Naiduv. Shantamma, AIR 1971 Mys. 25. At page 26 in paragraph 4 of the judgment, it has been held thus:- It is clear from a reading of this section that maintenance and expenses of litigation could be ordered to be paid to the wife or husband, as the case may be, during the pendency of the proceedings. This provision has been made by the Legislature to see that if the husband or the wife is to contest an application under any of the provisions of this Act and if he or she has no means for his or her maintenance or to meet the cost of the litigation, the other spouse should be ordered to maintain the indigent spouse and also pay the expenses of the litigation. This has been done on considerations of public policy. When once an order has been passed under this section no matter what happens to the petitions thereafter, the liability to pay maintenance and expenses of the litigation in respect of the period during which the proceedings were pending, cannot be avoided. The subsequent dismissal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the petition does not exonerate the liability already incurred." In Mohan Lal v. Smt.Kamlesh, AIR 1984 P & H 332 the question came for consideration was, whether an application under Sec.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act could be proceeded with when the main petition itself has been disposed of and whether any order could be passed after the disposal of the main petition. In that case, application for interim maintenance and litigation expenses was filed. But the same was not disposed of. After the disposal of the main petition, the wife wanted the interim application to be proceeded with. The jurisdiction of the court to pass an order under Section 24of the said Act was considered. A Division Bench of that Court, after overruling the judgment of a learned single Judge of that Court, held thus: "The object of enacting Section 24 of the Act is that an indigent spouse should not suffer during the pendency of the proceedings because of his/her poverty. It is the duty of the court to decide such an application expeditiously so that the indigent spouse is not handicapped because of want of funds. However, if the application under Section 24 is not decided during the pendency of the main petition on account of dilatory tactics of the other spouse or for come unforeseen circumstances, the whole purposes of the section stands frustrated in case it is dismissed on the ground that after the decision of main petition it does not survive. Therefore, even if the main petition is decided finally, the application under S.24 which is pending decision can continue. Similarly a revision petition filed against an order under S.24 continue in spite of disposal of the main petition. (Italics supplied) In view of the settled legal position, it could be safely concluded that an order passed on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act could be executed and the fruits of the order could be recovered even after the disposal of the main petition". 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this court reported in 1989-1-L.W. 342 (supra). A perusal of this judgment shows that it is a judgment wherein this court has held that courts can award pendente lite maintenance under Sec.24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act till the disposal of the petition or the appeal and not permanent alimony. Thus the issue before this court in that judgment is whether permanent alimony can be granted to a wife under Sec.25 of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Hindu Marriage Act even though the main petition for annulment of the marriage under Sec.12 of the Act was dismissed. The facts in the present case are different and this judgment is not helpful to the petitioner. 8. A sum of Rs.1500/- per month granted by the court below, each for the wife and the minor child from the date of petition till the date of the order and the litigation expenses of Rs.2000/- and the medical expenses of Rs.1500/-, are reasonable and I do not find any infirmity nor illegality in the order warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. In the result, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. No costs. C.M.P.No.14149/2004 is also dismissed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. sks To 1. The Sub-Judge, Sub-Court, Tiruppatur, Vellore District. 2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. C.R.P.(PD)1529/04. 24.7.2006 mj(co) gp/18.8. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/