IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal from Order No. 411 of 2010 Pradeep Singh S/o Shri C.P. Singh R/o 151/40, Rajpur Road, Dehradun ……….Appellant Versus Moksha D/o Shri K.L. Jetli R/oTagore House, Army Public School Dagshai, District Solan (H.P.) …………Respondent Shri Neeraj Garg , Advocate, present for the appellant. Coram: Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Oral: Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This is delay condonation application no. 9367 of 2010 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 25.07.2008 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in miscellaneous case no. 104 of 2002. 2. Heard and perused the affidavit accompanying the application. 2 3. The delay condonation application is allowed. Delay is condoned. 4. Also heard on admission and perused the impugned order dated 25.07.2008, passed by the trial court in miscellaneous case no. 104 of 2002. 5. It appears that the parties to the matrimony were in litigation in original suit no. 240 of 1988 wherein decree of divorce dated 26.05.1989, was passed with direction to pay certain alimony. Execution Case No. 14 of 2001, appears to have been filed by the wife (present respondent) for recovery of the alimony. Present appellant, before the trial court moved an application under section 25 (2) and (3) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, praying that proceedings of Execution Case be cancelled. The trial court, after hearing the parties, rejected the application seeking cancellation of Execution Case. 6. Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, empowers court to modify or verify the order passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 25, in the change circumstances. Sub-section (3) also empowers the court to change or verify the decree. But unless the decree changed or modified, the appellant (judgment debtor) has no right to get 3 cancelled the proceedings of the pending execution. The Executing Court is bound by the decree passed by the trial court which has attained finality. 7. In the above circumstances, we do not find any error of law in the impugned order passed by the trial court. The appeal is dismissed summarily with the observation the the appellant is at liberty to move an application for modification of the order, if the circumstances are changed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 09.11.2010 Parul