Charanjit Talwar, J.

( 1 ) BY this petition Sh. Rishi Dev Anand seeks setting aside of an order passed by Sh. Jaspal Singh Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by Smt. Devinder Kumar, it was directed that maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 300. 00 per month and also litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 550. 00 be paid to her with effect from September 6, 1980, the date of filing of the application.

( 2 ) THE husband, petitioner herein, obtained an ex parte decree for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, on February 16, 1977. On August 25, 1980, the wife, respondent herein, moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside that decree.- During its pendency on September 6, 1980, she moved an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. During the pendency of the present Revision Petition the application for setting aside the decree has since been decided by an order passed on August 27, 1984. That application has been dismissed by Shri R. P. Gupta Additional District Judge, Delhi. The challenge before me is to the earlier order passed on November 9, 1983. In the said order it has been noticed that maintenance pendente lite is to be paid only upto June 3, 1982, because admittedly from the said date the wife is getting maintenance pendente lite under orders of Punjab andharyana High Court in another proceeding pending inter se between the parties. It is admitted by the respondent that she had been granted Rs. 500. 00 per month as maintenance pendente lite and Rs. 1,000. 00 towards litigation expense) in those proceedings.

( 3 ) THE learned trial court dismissed the objection of the husband that after the passing of the decree of divorce on February 16, 1977, there were no proceedings pending under the Hindu Marriage Act before it and as such the application under Section 24 of the Act was not maintainable. The learned Court after analysing various judgments cited before it by the counsel for parties concluded that none of those authorities was applicable in the present case. However, it was observed that an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable in view of Section 21 of the Act, and, therefore, the proceedings during its pendency are proceedings under the Act. Mr. Maheshwar Dayal on behalf of the petitioner has contested this proposition. The further submission made by him is that since the petitioner was on medical leave without pay from November 4, 1979, to April 29, 1982, he could not have been directed to pay interim maintenance and litigation expenses as he had no income whatsoever during the relevant period. It was further urged that the dismissal of the application under Order 9 Rule It of the Code of Civil Procedure on August 27, 1984, reinforces the fact that proceedings under the Act has culminated on February 16, 1977, and as such the ex-wife, was not entitled to maintenance pendente lite for the period thereafter.

( 4 ) I have gone through the judgments noticed by the learned trial court which judgments were also cited before me. I agree with the observation that none of them directly deals with the proposition that on an application moved by a spouse for setting aside the exparte decree for divorce, the proceedings till that application is decided are "proceedings" under this Act. The word "proceedings" used in Section 24 is a word of wide import and cannot be said to have a restricted meaning. It has been held in various aurthorities that the term "proceedings" in Section 24 is not confined only to substantive proceedings like restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation, annulment of marriage and divorce proceedings. An application under Section 24 of the Act has been held to be maintainable even in proceedings under Section 25 thereof f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document