Balraj Singh Petitioner(S) v. Gurmit Kaur (S) 2011 SCC Online P&H 3838
Ram Chand Gupta, J. (Oral)
The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 25.05.2010, Annexure P5 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur in an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter refer to as the 'Act') granting maintenance of Rs. 1500/- to respondent-wife from the date of filing of the application instead of from the date of restoration of divorce petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur.

Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that a petition under Section 13 of the Act has been filed by respondent-wife against petitioner-husband on 29.10.2007 However, the petition was dismissed in default on 26.08.2008 as notice could not be issued for want of process fee and registered cover.

On application being filed by respondent-wife for restoration of the petition, the same was restored on 01.12.2009 by learned trial Court videos order, Annexure P3. After restoration of the divorce petition, respondent-wife prayed for decision on the application filed by her for ad-interim maintenance and litigation expenses under Section 24 of the Act, which was opposed by present petitioner. Learned trial Court decided the said application and directed the present petitioner to pay maintenance pendente-lite @Rs. 1500/- per month from the date of filing of the application besides Rs. 2,500/- as litigation expenses.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-husband that he is ready to pay maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses to respondent-wife from the date of restoration of the divorce petition and that however, he is not liable to pay ad-interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act during the period the petition remained dismissed in default due to fault of respondent-wife. He has also contended that he has paid up to date interim maintenance and litigation expenses from the date of restoration of the divorce petition and the same has also been mentioned in the order of this Court dated 02.11.2010

The fact that petitioner-husband is paying maintenance from the date of restoration of divorce petition as per order of learned trial Court dated 25.05.2010 has not been denied by learned counsel for respondent-wife. There is force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner-husband that respondent-wife is not entitled for ad-interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act during the period the petition for divorce filed by her remained dismissed in default.

Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted, and the impugned order is modified to the extent that respondent-wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 24 of the Act @Rs. 1,500/- per month from the date of restoration of the main petition.

Disposed of accordingly.