K.K. SONAWANE, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

3. The present writ petition is directed against the impugned order passed by the Family Court, Thane below application, Exhibit-10 dated 10.08.2017 in Execution Proceeding bearing R.D. No. 20/2015. The petitioner-Parag Parelkar moved the application (below Exhibit-10) seeking dismissal of the execution proceeding being barred by period of limitation.

4. The factual aspect of the matter in nutshell is that, the petitioner - Parag Parelkar and respondent No. 2 - N. Geetanjali Parelkar both were legally wedded husband and wife. Unfortunately, there was a marital discord in between the spouses resulting into Court litigation bearing Marriage Petition No. A-249 of 2010 (old Marriage Petition No. 387 of 2008) for dissolution of marital relations between the spouses. Pending the marriage petition, respondent-wife filed an application for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”). The learned Judge, Family Court, Thane, considered the attending circumstances on record and allowed the application partly. Accordingly, the petitioner-husband was bade to pay Rs. 10,000/- p.m. each to two daughters of the spouses i.e. Rs. 20,000/- p.m. from the date of application filed on 17.06.2010 till final decision of the marriage petition. It has been alleged that the petitioner-husband did not give response to the order passed by the Family Court, Thane nor deposit the amount of interim maintenance for the daughters. Eventually, circumstances constrained the respondent-wife to file R.D. No. 20/2015 for recovery of arrears of interim maintenance from the petitioner-husband.

5. On receipt of notice of Darkhast, the petitioner-husband appeared in the proceeding and raised the objection that the present Darkhast-Petition is not maintainable as same is barred by period of limitation. The learned Judge of the Family Court, Thane appreciated the circumstances on record and found reluctant to nod in favour of petitioner-husband and proceeded to dismiss the application with costs. The learned Judge of the Family Court passed the impugned order (below Exhibit-10), the validity and legality of which is agitated in the present petition.

6. The legal issue to be determined in the present writ petition is:

“Whether the execution of decree or order passed by the Court and enforceable under Section 28-A of the Act, 1955 as well as execution of decree or order passed by the Family Court and enforceable under Section 18 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 are governed by the Article 136 of the Limitation Act or it would governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act.”

7. At the threshold, it would be apposite to have a glance over the legal provisions of law relevant to execution of decree or order by the Court under Hindu Marriage Act as well as decree or order passed by the Family Court. The provision of Section 24 of the Act is enacted to provide relief of interim maintenance and litigation expenses to a spouse to enable to maintain itself during pendency of proceeding. The Section 26 of the Act enables the Court to pass such interim order from time to time and to make such provisions as it may deem fit in respect of custody, maintenance and education of minor children. The Section 28-A of the Act describes the mode and manner for enforcement of decree or order made by the Court under Hindu Marriage Act. Section 28-A is reproduced as under:

28-A. Enforcement of decrees and orders - All decrees and orders made by the Court in any proceeding under this Act shall be enforced in the like manner as the decrees and orders of the Court made in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction for the time being are enforced.

8. The Family Court has also an authority to deal with issue of maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Act. The Section 18 of the Family Courts Act,