(1) The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place, on 11. 9. 1989. They were also blessed with two children. In the recent past, differences have arisen between them and the same resulted in institution of proceedings, under the relevant provisions of law, against each other.

(2) The petitioner filed FCOP No. 847 of 2000 in the Family Court, Hyderabad, against the respondent, for the relief of dissolution of the marriage. In that OP the respondent filed IA No. 101 of 2001, under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act'), for grant of maintenance. The IA was allowed, on 2. 11. 2001. Interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15,000/-, per month, was allowed, not only in favour of the respondent, but also to the two minor children. Ultimately, the OP. , was allowed, on 28. 6. 2005.

(3) The respondent filed EP No. 50 of 2008 in IA No. 101 of 2001 for recovery of arrears of maintenance granted to her with interest at 24% per annum. She has furnished the facts and figures in the EP. She specifically prayed for attachment of the movable properties mentioned in the ep schedule. The petitioner filed counter, opposing the EP. He stated that there are no arrears of maintenance, and that the respondent is not entitled to claim maintenance, subsequent to the date of decree in the OP i. e. , 28. 6. 2005. Other objections were also raised. Through order, dated 27. 4. 2009, the Family Court took the view that the petitioner is under obligation to pay a sum of Rs. 4,30,000/-, being the maintenance, at the rate of Rs. 5,000/-, per month, from May 2003, till December 2008. Interest at the rate of 24% per annum, was awarded, and the petitioner was required to pay the total amount of Rs. 5,11,600/-, before 25. 5. 2009. It was further directed that, if the petitioner commits any default, he shall be arrested. The said order is challenged in this CRP.

(4) Sri P. Keshav Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there was absolutely no basis for the Family Court to award maintenance, subsequent to the disposal of OP No. 847 of 2000. He contends that by its very nature, maintenance pendente lite is payable, during the pendency of the proceedings, and once the OP is disposed of, the obligation ceases. Learned counsel submits that there is no order, passed by any Court, for payment of maintenance, subsequent to the disposal of the OP. He further submits that the direction issued by the Family Court, for arrest of the petitioner, is untenable in law and outside the scope of the EP.

(5) Smt. D. Vathsalendra, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner committed default in payment of maintenance, and in that view of the matter, the necessity has arisen to file the EP. She contends that the Family Court has taken various aspects of the matter into account, and no interference is warranted with the order passed by it. Learned Counsel submits that, even where a woman spouse is granted maintenance, under Section 125 of the cr. PC the relief under Section 24 of the act, can be granted. It is also her case that there is no prohibition in law for continuing the arrangement under Section 24 of the act, even after the disposal of the OP, filed under Section 9 or 13 of the Act.

(6) The petitioner filed FCOP No. 847 of 2000 under Section 13 of the Act. In that op the respondent and two minor children, viz. , Shriram Chenji and Parashuram chenji filed IA No. 101 of 2001, under section 24 of the Act. It is rather surprising to note that the Family Court entertained the IA though Section 24 of the Act confers the right upon spouses alone, to claim maintenance. Be that as it may, the IA was allowed on 2. 11. 2001, awarding a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, per month, towards maintenance for the respondent and two minor children.

(7) The Family Court passed a docket order on 12. 1. 2005, directing the petitioner herein to deposit the maintenance amount payable to the children up to Ma