IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that non-compliance with maintenance orders can justify staying divorce proceedings under the inherent powers of the court.

ORDER :

(Lalitha Kanneganti, J.) :

The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed on I.A. filed under Section 151 of CPC in MC.No.1694/2016 dated 17.02.2020 by the III Addl. Family Court, Bengaluru, the wife is before this court.

2. The petitioner and respondent are referred to as wife and husband for the sake of convenience.

3. The husband/respondent in the writ petition had filed MC seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. In that, the wife had filed IA.No.3 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act r/w Section 151 of CPC to direct the husband to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month towards maintenance pendenti-lite and pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses. The family court by order dated 14.03.2019 had granted an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month towards interim maintenance to her and her minor daughter from the date of application i.e., 15.07.2016 till the disposal of the main petition and also a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards one time litigation expenses. The husband is directed to pay the arrears of interim maintenance amount within one month in lumpsum and he shall pay the regular interim maintenance amount on or before on 5th day of every succeeding month.

4. The present application is filed by the wife under Section 151 of the CPC stating that there shall be stay of all further proceedings for non payment of the arrears of interim maintenance. The husband has filed his objections to the I.A. The trial court by order impugned had dismissed the petition, stating that the petition for maintenance is filed in the year 2016 and interim maintenance is granted by order dated 15.07.2016 and till this time no execution petition is filed for recovery of arrears of interim maintenance. When the case is posted for arguments, the present application came to be filed and the court felt that there are no bonafidies in the application to stay the further proceedings. The court observed that the wife is always at liberty to file execution petition and recover the arrears of maintenance if any. Considering the age of the petitioner and as already 4 years have elapsed, the court had declined to stay the further proceedings. Aggrieved thereby the wife is before this court.

5. When this matter came up before this court on 11.01.2001, this court had stayed further proceedings on the file of the III Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the wife submits that the court failed to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to stay the proceedings in order to compel the husband/respondent to pay the arrears of maintenance. He relied on the Judgment in case of M. Ramachandra Rao –Vs- M.S.Kowsalya, AIR 1969 Mysore 76 wherein it is held that the it is the highest duty of the trial judge to insist upon obedience of orders of interim maintenance and trial judge has inherent powers to stop further proceedings commenced by the husband. Learned counsel further submits that the trial court failed to follow the judgment of this court in the case of H.K. Vijaykumar –Vs- Smt. Rajini in W.P.No.36859/2018 dated 31.10.2018. The court had failed to look at the plight of the wife and the daughter who have not been paid any maintenance.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband submits that when an order is passed granting maintenance, when the same is not paid, available option to the wife is to file Execution proceedings but she cannot come up before this court seeking to stay the further proceedings and such power is not vested with the court. The trial court had rightly dismissed the petition and no grounds are made out to interfere with the well considered order passed by the trial court.

8. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record. In this case the petition for divorce is instituted by the husband seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Admittedly an order is passed for payment of maintenance on 15.07.2016. and he has not com