ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 16.12.2019 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raigarh in Civil M.J.C. No. 46/2019, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act, 1955”).

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, that the respondent in fraudulent manner obtained decree of divorce in Civil Suit No. F-66-A/2017, in which, the divorce was granted on mutual consent. The petitioner having First Appeal (Misc.) No. 250/2018, which has been disposed of vide order dated 24.09.2019, in which, the petitioner was granted liberty to file application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. to challenge the decree of divorce mentioned hereinabove. The petitioner has then, filed an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C., which has been registered as Civil M.J.C. No. 46/2019. It was in this proceeding, the petitioner moved an application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, praying for grant of maintenance during pendency of the proceeding and the same has been dismissed by the impugned order.

3. It is further submitted that the proceeding under Section 151 of the C.P.C. is outcome of the proceeding of divorce, which was filed under the provisions of the Act, 1955. Therefore, the petitioner had entitlement for such maintenance during pendency of the proceeding.

4. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Suresh Kumar Verma (Dr.) Vs. Smt. Hemlata Verma, reported in 2001 (2) JLJ 93, in which, it was held that such prayer can be made in any proceeding, therefore, this proceeding under Section 151 of the C.P.C., is also covered in that ratio. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs. District Judge, Dehradun & others, reported in AIR 1997 SC 3397. It is prayed that this writ petition be allowed, the impugned order be set aside and the learned Family Court be directed to consider on merits of the application of the petitioner filed under Section 24 of the Act, 1955.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions and submits that the proceeding initiated on the application filed under Section 151 of the C.P.C., is not under the Act, 1955. This High Court in First Appeal (Misc.) No. 250 of 2018 vide order dated 24.09.2019, directed that the learned Family Court shall hold an enquiry in the matter and finally decide the same within a period of 8 weeks and shall not grant unnecessary adjournment to any of the party. The petitioner is adopting dilatory tactic, therefore, the proceeding in the case under Section 151 of the C.P.C. is held up. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no entitlement to make any claim under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 for the only reason that the proceeding is not under the Act, 1955, hence, this writ petition be dismissed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

7. Considered on the submissions. It is a case, in which, the petitioner has challenged decree of divorce on mutual consent in Civil Suit No. F-66-A/2017 granted by learned Family Court, Raigarh, on the ground that the decree was obtained by the respondent by playing fraud upon the Family Court. The petitioner had never appeared before the Family Court and some impostor has given appearance for the petitioner, subsequent to which, the decree was passed. This decree was challenged in FAM No. 250/2018, in which, the Division Bench of this Court, after considering on the submissions and the material present, held that the issue as alleged, needs detailed enquiry, therefore, the petitioner was directed to move application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. before the Family Court.

8. In Suresh Kumar Verma (Dr.) (Supra), any proceeding under the Act, has been elaborated, which may be original, interlocutory, appellate or revisional s