( 1 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the learned subordinate judge, Pithapuram dated 20-2-1989 in O. P. No. 37 of 1988 striking out the defence and proceeding with the case.

( 2 ) THE simple facts are : The wife filed a petition O. P. No. 37 of 1988 for restitution of conjugal rights. Pending the main petition, she filed la. No. 298 of 1988 for interim maintenance on the ground that she was poor and unable to maintain herself. After hearing both sides, the petition was allowed on 15-12-1988. The said order has become final as no appeal has been filed. Thereafter, the main case was posted for enquiry.

( 3 ) ON 17-2-1989 when the case was posted for trial, the husband was absent and he was set ex parte. Till then not a pie was paid towards maintenance. The learned trial judge struck out the defence of the respondent and posted the case for evidence of the wife. It is the validity of this order that is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Court has no jurisdiction to strike out the defences in a matter of this kind and there is no provision in the Hindu Marriage Act or the Civil procedure Code warranting such an action and that the only course open to the party is to enforce the order by taking out execution proceedings.

( 5 ) THE fact that the husband has not paid a single pie pursuant to the order dated 15-12-1988 even though the said order had become final is not in dispute. The object of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is t6 assist a poor party. The Section envisages that none of the parties to a matrimonial cause should suffer any disadvantage on account of their financial inferiority and the proceedings under Section 24 are pendente lite proceedings. It is true that under Section 28 of the Act, the orders can be enforced by execution. But such action is a time consuming process and in the mean time, the matrimonial proceeding itself may come to an end and the only way to prevent it is by staying the proceedings in the suit in which case the parties would be required to wait for considerable time. The matrimonial proceedings are expected to be disposed of expeditiously. As evident from Section 21 (b) the trial should be conducted from day to day and the court has to make every endeavour to conclude the trial within 6 months from the date of notice of the petition on the respondent. Even appeals are expected to be concluded within 3 months from the date of service of notice. Therefore, stay of the proceedings would not further either the object of the Act or the cause of justice. In the circumstances, to ask a party to take resort to execution proceedings for the enforcement of the interim order of elimony pendente lite would be frustrating the cause of justice. Even contempt proceedings would not be an efficacious remedy and it is doubtful even after the contempt proceedings whether the amount would be paid.

( 6 ) THERE is no other provision in the Hindu Marriage Act for enforcement of the orders passed under Section 24. However, Section 21 of the act says that all proceedings under the Act shall be regulated as far as may be by the Civil Procedure Code. So where the Act is silent, the Court can avail the provisions of C. P. C, Order 11 Rule 21 C. P. C. provides for striking out of the defence in case a party to the suit fails to comply with any order to answer interogatories or for discovery or inspection of documents. Similar provision is found in Section 35 (b) when costs are made a condition for further proceedings. But none of these provisions provide for striking of the defence for non-compliance with the order passed under Sec. 24. It is therefore, to be seen whether Section 151 C. P. C. could be availed of. Section 151 C. P. C. says that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of