IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4210 of 2010 Date of decision: 1st August, 2011 Ram Gopal Mehta … Petitioner Versus Rekha @ Maggi … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Ms. Savita Tanwar, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Parveen Kataria, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner-husband has assailed the impugned order (Annexure P-3) dated 15th March, 2010 whereby the Additional District Judge, Amritsar permitted the petitioner to withdraw the petition filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’), however, it kept the proceedings under Section 24 of the Act separate for determination of the maintenance pendente lite to be paid to the respondent-wife. Along with the order (Annexure P-3), order (Annexure P-4) dated 12th June, 2010 has also been challenged whereby the Court of Additional District Judge, Amritsar adjourned the matter to enable the husband to obtain stay from the District Judge. Ms.Savita Tanwar, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr.Vikas Singh, counsel for the petitioner, states that once the main petition filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act is allowed to be Civil Revision No.4210 of 2010 withdrawn with permission to file a afresh petition, then the petition under Section 24 of the Act would automatically fall and cannot be kept alive. Mr. Parveen Kataria, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-wife, states that till the time the main petition remained pending, the same was contested by the wife, therefore, she is entitled to maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses for that period. Mr.Kataria further states that if the argument of the petitioner-husband is accepted it will create an anomalous situation, i.e. the wife will continue with the litigation without award of the maintenance and when the case will become ripe for award of maintenance the husband as tactic will withdraw the application and leave the wife in lurch. I find merit in the contention advanced by Mr.Kataria, counsel for the respondent-wife. Here is a case where husband filed petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act in the year 2006. The wife was contesting application for award of maintenance pendente lite, when the same was near conclusion husband withdrew the main petition. If this course is permitted, it will deprive the wife of litigation expenses, which she had incurred. Furthermore, what is due to her, ought to be paid to her. The period, for which she contested litigation, she is entitled to the maintenance. Therefore, present revision petition is hereby disposed of with a direction that the respondent-wife shall be entitled to maintenance pendente lite for the period when the petition was instituted till the same was withdrawn. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 1, 2011 rps 2