Civil Revision No.152 of 2001 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.152 of 2001 (O&M). Date of Decision : 28.1.2010. Mohan Singh ......Petitioner Versus Harjit Kaur ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Bhatheja, Advocate, for Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for the respondent. NAWAB SINGH J (Oral) Challenge is to the order dated September 30th, 2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby, warrant of attachment of the property of the petitioner – Judgment Debtor for realization of the amount of Rs.30,400/- were issued. 2 Petitioner filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”) against his wife Harjit Kaur- respondent, which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, by Judgment dated February 20th, 1996. Petitioner preferred an appeal, bearing F.A.O. No. 82-M of 1996 before this Court. During the pendency of the said appeal, a Division Bench of this Court fixed maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses by order dated December 19th, 1996 on the application filed by the wife under Section 24 of the Act. Against the said order, petitioner filed Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 7167 of 1997 before Hon`ble Supreme Court, but the same was also dismissed by order dated September 22nd, 1997. Petitioner did not make the payment of maintenance pendente lite. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed for Civil Revision No.152 of 2001 2 .. non-prosecution in defaulting to pay the arrears of maintenance, by this Court by order dated March 19th, 1998. 3. Respondent-wife filed an Execution Application to realize the said amount fixed by this Court. By the impugned order, the Additional District Judge issued warrant of attachment of property of the petitioner-Judgment Debtor. Accordingly the property was auctioned and the amount of Rs.30,400/- was paid to the respondent-wife, as stated at bar by learned counsel representing her. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, so the petitioner could not have been burdened with the amount of maintenance pendente lite. 5. The ground on which the order of the trial Court has been assailed is untenable. This Court, by order dated December 19th, 1996 directed the petitioner to pay maintenance pendente lite to the respondent-wife, which order has attained finality as the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner has already been dismissed by the Hon`ble Supreme Court by order dated September 22nd, 1997. The respondent had every right to get the said order dated December 19th, 1996 executed. By getting the petition dismissed in default, a spouse cannot absolve him or herself of the liability to pay the maintenance allowance pendente lite. Even if the petition is dismissed on merits, the liability qua the payment of maintenance pendente lite shall survive. 6. The impugned order is perfectly valid and legal and this revision petition is dismissed. No costs. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 28.1.2010. som