A wife is entitled to recover alimony for the period for which the order of alimony was subsisting, even after the dismissal of the matrimonial suit, and can seek interim attachment of the husband's property to secure her claim for alimony.

1. CHALLENGE is to the order dated August 17, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Barasat in Mat. Execution Case No. 1 of 2010 thereby rejecting the prayer for interim attachment on an application under Order 21 Rules 54 and 66 of the C.P.C.

2. THE husband/opposite party herein instituted the suit being Matrimonial Suit No. 930 of 2000 against the petitioner for divorce under Section 13(1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. THE wife/petitioner herein is contesting the said suit. She filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and that application was allowed, granting alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month. THE learned Trial Judge has also granted a litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/-. Ultimately, the husband filed an application for dismissal of the said matrimonial suit for non-prosecution and that application was allowed. THE wife filed an application for execution of the order of alimony for the period during which the suit was pending and that application has been converted into Money Execution Case No. 1 of 2010. She filed an application for interim attachment and that prayer was rejected. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the point for consideration is whether the impugned order should be sustained.

3. UPON hearing both the sides and on consideration of the materials-on-record, I am of the view that the learned Trial Judge has committed errors of law in rejecting the application for interim order of attachment. The order of alimony was passed on October 11, 2001 directing the husband to pay alimony to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month w.e.f. November 22, 2000 and a litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- only. So, recurring cause of action arises whenever the husband fails to make payment as per order dated October 11, 2001. Though, the matrimonial suit was dismissed for non-prosecution, the wife is entitled to recover the alimony for the period for which the order of alimony was subsisting. In fact, the husband paid a sum of Rs.8,550/- as alimony for two months and the litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/- after deducting a sum of Rs. 450/- on account of postal charges. As per calculation, the wife is still entitled to get a sum of Rs. 3,38,850/- and for non-payment of such amount the application for execution was preferred by the wife. The wife was very much aware that she was to file an application under Order 21 Rule 22 of the C.P.C. and she would take necessary steps accordingly before the issuance of any writ. But she has prayed for an interim order of attachment on the ground that as soon as the notice is served under Order 21 Rule 22 of the C.P.C, the husband may dispose of the property to be attached.

4. NO doubt as per Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the execution of a decree may be lodged at any time within 12 years from the date of passing of the order. The instant application for execution has been filed within the said period of limitation from the date of order. Further, the husband is required to pay the alimony monthly-meaning thereby a recurring cause of action would arise for non-payment of the alimony month by month. Therefore, the application cannot be stated to be barred by limitation at all. According to the decision of Lataben Yogendrakumar Goswami v. Yogendrakumar Shankargir Goswami, reported in AIR 1996 Gujarat 103 enforcement of the interim order can be made irrespective of the termination of the main proceeding of any ground either for merits or for non-prosecution.

5. AD-interim ex parte order of the nature as prayed for in the application is permissible in view of the decision of Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. v. Grapco Industries Ltd. and Ors., reported in AIR 1999 SC 1975.

6. MR. Das Majumder appearing on behalf of the opposite party has submitted that the husband is a retired person and he has no income at present. So, the wife is not entitled to any mai