Madras High Court
N. Ratna @ Raji ...Revision vs / on 28 November, 2023
Author: Battu Devanand
Bench: Battu Devanand
C.R.P(MD)No.760 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
C.R.P(MD)No.760 of 2019
and C.M.P.(MD) No.4631 of 2019
N. Ratna @ Raji ...Revision Petitioner/Petitioner/
Petitioner/Respondent
/Vs./
R.Kannan ...Respondent/Respondent/
Respondent/Petitioner
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to call for the records pertaining to the docket
order made in unnumbered E.P.No... of 2018 in I.A.No.99 of 2015
in H.M.O.P.No.79 of 2018 on the file of the Family Court Judge,
Nagercoil and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Kishore
For Respondent : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.760 of 2019
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by
the docket order dated 18.09.2018 made in unnumbered E.P.No. ---
of 2018 in I.A.No.99 of 2015 in H.M.O.P.No.79 of 2018 on the file
of the Family Court Judge, Nagercoil.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner and the respondent are wife and husband. Initially, the
respondent herein filed H.M.O.P.No.56 of 2015 on the file of the 1st
Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, for divorce and while transferring the
case to the Family Court, Nagercoil, it was re-numbered as
H.M.O.P.No.79 of 2018.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that during the pendency of the divorce petition, the petitioner filed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
I.A.No.99 of 2015 for interim alumni and the same has been allowed
on 14.03.2018 directing the respondent herein to pay a sum of
Rs.20,000/- per month towards interim alumni, Rs.2,000/- towards
transport expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Thereafter, H.M.O.P.No.79 of 2018 was dismissed for non-
prosecution by order dated 03.05.2018.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits
that the petitioner filed execution petition to execute the order dated
14.03.2018 in I.A.No.99 of 2015. The trial court, without even
numbering the said execution petition, dismissed the same by its
docket order dated 18.09.2018 holding that it is not maintainable on
the ground that the main H.M.O.P itself is dismissed for non-
prosecution on 03.05.2018 and therefore, the petitioner is not
entitled for the relief as prayed in the execution petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends
that till the date of disposal of H.M.O.P.No.79 of 2018 i.e on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
03.05.2018, the interim maintenance order passed by the learned 1st
Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, in I.A.No.99 of 2018
dated 14.03.2018 is in existence and as such, the petitioner is
entitled for seeking execution of the order dated 14.03.2018 in
I.A.No.99 of 2018 and the order of the court below holding that the
execution petition is not maintainable is contrary to law and also the
settled principles. Challenging the said order passed on 18.09.2018
in an unnumbered execution petition, the petitioner is before this
Court.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that
as the original petition filed in H.M.O.P.No.79 of 2018 was
dismissed for non-prosecution, the order dated 14.03.2018 in
I.A.No.99 of 2015 is not an executable order and as such, the court
below has rightly dismissed the execution petition filed by the
petitioner and interference of this Court is not required in this
revision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. Having heard the submissions made on either side and
on a careful examination of the materials available on record, it
appears admittedly H.M.O.P.No.79 of 2018 was dismissed on
03.05.2018 for non-prosecution. But, before that, in I.A.No.99 of
2015, the court below passed an order dated 14.03.2018 granting
interim maintenance and other expenses towards the petitioner. In
my considered view, the petitioner is entitled for fruits of the order
dated 14.03.2018 passed in I.A.No.99 of 2015 though the main
H.M.O.P was dismissed for non-prosecution. The opinion of this
Court is fortified by the authorities relied on by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, which are extracted herein under:
1) In M.Kanagaraj Vs. Jeeva and another reported in
(2006)4 MLJ 569, wherein, it is held as follows:
''In view of the settled legal position, it could be safely
concluded that an order passed on an application under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act could be executed and
the fruits of the order could be recovered even after the
disposal of the main petition''.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2)In B.M.Muniratnam Naidu Vs. Shantamma reported in
AIR 1971 Mys.25, a Division Bench of Mysore High Court
held as extracted herein under:
“It is clear from a reading of this section that maintenance and
expenses of litigation could be ordered to be paid to the wife
or husband, as the case may be, during the pendency of the
proceeding. This provision has been made by the Legislature
to see that if the husband or the wife is to contest an
application under any of the provisions of this Act and if he or
she has no means for his or her maintenance or to meet the
cost of the litigation, the other spouse should be ordered to
maintain the indigent spouse and also pay the expenses of the
litigation. This has been done on considerations of public
policy. When once an order has been passed under this section
no matter what happens to the petitions thereafter, the liability
to pay maintenance and expenses of the litigation in respect of
the period during which the proceedings were pending, cannot
be avoided. The subsequent dismissal of the petition does not
exonerate the liability already incurred."
3) In Mohan Lal Vs. Smt.Kamlesh reported in AIR 1984 P
& H 332 the question that came for consideration was,
whether an application under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act could be proceeded with when the main petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
itself has been disposed, of and whether any order could be
passed after the disposal of the main petition. In that case,
application for interim maintenance and litigation expenses
was filed. But the same was not disposed of. After the disposal
of the main petition, the wife wanted the interim application to
be proceeded with. The jurisdiction of the Court to pass an
order under Section 24 of the said Act was considered. A
Division Bench of that Court, after overruling the judgment of
a learned single Judge of that Court, held thus:
"The object of enacting Section 24 of the Act is that an
indigent spouse should not suffer during the pendency of the
proceedings because of his/her poverty. It is the duty of the
court to decide such an application expeditiously so that the
indigent spouse is not handicapped because of want of funds.
However, if the application under Section 24 is not decided
during the pendency of the main petition on account of
dilatory tactics of the other spouse or for come unforeseen
circumstances, the whole purposes of the section stands
frustrated in case it is dismissed on the ground that after the
decision of main petition it does not survive. Therefore, even
if the main, petition is decided finally, the application under
Section 24 which is pending decision can continue. Similarly a
revision petition filed against an order under Section 24
continue in spite of disposal of the main petition”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4) In R.Kuppusamy Vs. Kanagalakshmi reported in 1997
(III) CTC 442, this Court held as extracted herein under:
''In view of the settled legal position, it could be safely
concluded that an order passed on an application under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act could be executed and
the fruits of the order could be recovered even after the
disposal of the main petition''.
9. In view of the settled preposition of law, in my
considered view, the court below committed an error by dismissing
the execution petition filed by the petitioner even without numbering
the same, holding that it is not maintainable, which is unreasonable
and illegal. As such, the docket order dated 18.09.2018 passed by the
court below is liable to be set aside.
10. Accordingly, the docket order dated 18.09.2018
made in unnumbered E.P.No. --- of 2018 in I.A.No.99 of 2015 in
H.M.O.P.No.79 of 2018 on the file of the Family Court Judge,
Nagercoil, is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the
Family Court, Nagercoil, for fresh consideration and to pass orders
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
afresh after hearing both sides.
11. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
12. No costs.
13. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
28.11.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
CM
To,
The Family Court Judge,
Nagercoil.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
CM
and C.M.P.(MD) No.4631 of 2019
28.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
