IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 510 of 2010 (M/S) Smt. Neeru Tandon W/o Dr. Rahul Samrat Tandon ..……… Petitioner. Versus Dr. Rahul Samrat Tandon S/o Sri Shiv Prasad Tandon ……… Respondent. Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri Neeraj Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shobhit Saharia, the learned counsel for the respondent. The opposite party/husband instituted a suit u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and, in these proceedings, the wife/petitioner filed an application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was allowed and a direction was issued to pay maintenance. This maintenance amounting to Rs.2,25,000/- was not paid and, accordingly, the petitioner moved an application that divorce proceedings should be stayed till the amount of maintenance was not paid. The application of the petitioner was rejected by an order dated 30th March, 2010 on the ground that since there is a direction of the High Court for expeditious disposal, the proceedings cannot be stayed. The Court, however, directed the husband to pay the amount on or before the date fixed. It is alleged that several dates have been fixed but the amount has not as yet been paid. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that against the order passed u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, an appeal u/s 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 was preferred before a Division Bench of this Court in which the petitioner took an objection with regard to the maintainability of the appeal. The said objection was rejected by the Division 2 Bench by its order dated 30th May, 2010 and that the Court directed the appeal be listed for final disposal in ordinary course. Be that as it may. At the moment, there is an order of the Family Court directing the opposite party to pay maintenance. The opposite party may have filed an appeal which is pending consideration, but there is nothing on record to indicate that the opposite party has applied for the stay of the order passed u/S 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Further, the Court finds that the prayer of the petitioner for staying the proceedings is patently erroneous. These proceedings cannot be stayed merely because the amount of maintenance is not being paid by the opposite party. The proper remedy for the petitioner is to file an application for the execution of the said order u/s 28A. of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed as being bereft of merit. Further, the Court directs the opposite party to file an appropriate application, if any, for stay of the order passed by the Family Court u/s 24 of Act. If an interim order is obtained, the opposite party will abide by the said order. In the event, the application is not filed and no order is obtained within the next two weeks, it would be open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application u/s 28A. of the Hindu Marriage Act for the recovery of the amount. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 08.07.2010 Shiv