A court has the inherent power to stay further proceedings in a matrimonial action, for non-compliance of an order made under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

1. In May, 1960, Birendra Chandra Karmokar, the Opposite party, filed an application, under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for restitution of his conjugal rights with the petitioner No. 1 and for injunction against petitioner No. 2, the mother of petitioner No. 1, restraining her from interfering therewith or standing in the way thereof. The said application was registered as Matrimonial Suit No. 93 of 1960 5 of 1960. The petitioners filed a joint written statement objecting to the prayer for restitution of conjugal rights, inter alia, on the plea of cruelty, to the petitioner No. 1, by the opposite party and the members of his family.

2. On August 18, 1960. the petitioner No. 1 filed an application in the aforesaid suit, under section 24 of the Act, asking for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceeding. The Court below, on being satisfied that the wife petitioner No. 1 had no independent income sufficient for her support and for defraying the necessary expenses of the proceeding, passed an order, dated December 17, 1960, directing the opposite party to pay to the petitioner No. 1, as maintenance pendente lite, a sum of Rs. 31/-per month, with effect from June, 1960 and a further sum of Rs. 200/- as expenses of the proceeding. The amounts aforementioned were directed to be paid to the petitioner No. 1 by the end of January, 1961. The opposite party did not pay the aforesaid sums of money to the petitioner No. 1 nor any part thereof.

Thereupon, on March 3, 1961, the petitioner No. 1 applied for stay of the matrimonial suit until payment. The Court below rejected the application with the following observations:-

"it appears that the respondent has engaged her lawyer to press the petition for stay, but she is not herself present. I think that she could have examined herself in defense. So I think that in this case the proceeding should not be stayed. So fix 11. 3. 61 for peremptory hearing. Respondent must be present on that day. The petition for stay is rejected. Petitioner's Advocate submits that his client will pay some amount on that day. Petitioner is therefore, directed, to pay the amount which the court has directed to pay for expenses of this litigation by the next date. "

3. There is no dispute now that the husband opposite party has not paid any sum of money to the wife petitioner No. 1. Against the order rejecting the prayer for stay of the suit, the petitioners moved this court, under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution and obtained this Rule. Two points call for my decision in this Rule, (i) whether the petitioner had a right of appeal against the order, and (ii) whether the proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights should have been stayed till the husband paid the amount, which he had been ordered to pay under section 24 of the Act?

4. On the point of right of appeal, I need consider, in the first place, the provisions of section 28 of the Act, which I set out below:-

"all decrees and orders made by the court in any proceeding under this Act shall be enforced in like manner as the decrees and orders of the court made in the exercise of the original civil jurisdiction are enforced, and may be appealed from under any law for the time being in force; provided that there shall be no appeal on the subject of costs only. "

I need further consider the provisions of section 21 of the Act, which is also set out below :-

"subject to the other provisions contained in this Act and to such rules as the High Court may make in this behalf, all proceedings under this Act shall be regulated, as far as may be, by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (Act V of 1908. "

5. I need also bear in mind section 4 (b) of the Act which provides:-

"any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act. "

Under sectio