Rattan Lal vs Pushpa

L.N. Mittal, J.—In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, husband Rattan Lal has assailed order dated

22.09.2012 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Executing Court. Petitioner had filed petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short-the Act)

against respondent-wife Pushpa seeking restitution of conjugal rights. During pendency of said petition, trial court, on application filed by the

respondent u/s 24 of the Act, granted interim maintenance payable by the petitioner-husband. The main petition u/s 9 of the Act was dismissed as

withdrawn. The respondent filed execution petition claiming arrears of maintenance pendente lite granted to her u/s 24 of the Act, vide order dated

14.03.2007. The petitioner-husband filed objections alleging that the respondent-wife was already married with one Madan Gopal on 24.02.1996

and the said marriage still subsisted when marriage between the parties was solemnized, and therefore, marriage between the parties was null and

void and it has been so held by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo, in application filed by the wife against the petitioner-husband

u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, vide order dated 11.11.2009 (Annexure P-1), upheld by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. M-23703 of

2011, vide order dated 15.03.2012 (Annexure P-3), and therefore, order of maintenance pendente lite is not executable because there was no

valid marriage between the parties. The said objections have been dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated 22.09.2012 (Annexure P-

2), which is under challenge in this revision petition.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the aforesaid version of the petitioner, as raised in objections before the Executing Court. I have carefully

considered the same. The aforesaid version cannot be accepted for various reasons. Firstly, the petitioner himself filed petition u/s 9 of the Act

against the respondent alleging valid marriage between the parties. Consequently, in execution proceedings arising out of the same case, the

petitioner cannot turn around and contend that there was no valid marriage between the parties. Secondly, u/s 24 of the Act, maintenance

pendente lite and litigation expenses can be granted during pendency of any matrimonial proceedings under the Act irrespective of whether the

marriage between the parties was valid or void. For example, if a petition u/s 11 of the Act is filed alleging that marriage between the parties was

void, during pendency of such petition, maintenance pendente lite can be awarded u/s 24 of the Act, even if subsequently the petition is allowed

and marriage between the parties is held to be null and void. Thirdly, order dated 14.03.2007 granting maintenance pendente lite to the respondent

has attained finality, and therefore, the same could not be challenged in the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent for execution of the

said order. Fourthly, marriage between the parties has not been annulled or declared to be null and void by any decree passed by the Matrimonial

Court under the Act.

For the reasons aforesaid, it is manifest that order dated 14.03.2007 granting maintenance pendente lite to the respondent-wife is executable

and objections of the petitioner-husband have been rightly dismissed by the Executing Court. There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error

in the impugned order of the trial court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India. The revision petition is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed. Civil Miscellaneous applications, if any pending,

stand disposed of as infructuous.