( 1 ) THE respondent husband brought a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (the Act) against the wife the petitioner. On an application under Section 24 of the Act by the wife the Additional District Judge made an order on 12-5-1980 for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. He ordered the husband to pay Rs. 400. 00 as litigation expenses and Rs. 100. 00 per month on account maintenance with effect from 18-2-1980, the date of the applica- tion. For payment the Judge fixed 23-5-1980.

( 2 ) THE husband did not pay. So on 26-5-1980, the judge made this order :-

"the file be consigned to record room for the present. The petitioner can revive the petition after complying with order dated 12-5-1980. "the wife made an application for execution of the order of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses under Section 28a of the Act. The Judge issued warrant of attachment for the recovery of litigation expenses and maintenance allowance for the period from 18-2-1980 to 26-5-198d. But he refused to levy execution for the period after 26-5-1980.

( 3 ) THE wife s. case is that she is entitled to recover trom the husband monthly maintenance allowance for the period even after 26-5-1980 on the ground that the proceedings have not terminated and that she is entitled to monthly maintenance allowance till the determination of the proceedings. The Judge rejected this argument. By order dated 11-2-1981 he decided that there was no liability of the husband to pay maintenance pendente lite after the proceedings were consigned to record room. In other words, he held that the wife was entitled to recover maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 100. 00 per month up to the period of 26-5-1980 when the proceedings were consigned to record room but not after that. From the order dated 11-2-1981 the wife has brought this revision petition.

( 4 ) THE short question for decision is whether the wife can claim maintenance allowance as long as the husband s petition is not dismissed or decreed. Mr. Adalakha, learned counsel for the wife, says that the order dated 12-5-1980 in this case will entitle the wife to get from the husband monthly maintenance allowance so long as the case of the husband is not decided. One of the two things must happen, he says Either the petition under Section 9 of the Act is decreed or withdrawn.

( 5 ) IN my opinion this contention is not well founded. The marginal note of the section is very significant. It is "maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings". The section expressly says that the order of maintenance which the judge makes under Section 24 of the Act is to last only for the period of the proceedings. The words "where in any proceeding under this Act" and the phrase "during the proceedings" clearly show that it is a temporary order the life or which is conterminous with the proceedings. If there is no proceeding before the judge, Section 24 cannot be invoked. The question in what is the meaning of the term "pro- ceedings" as used in Section 24.

( 6 ) WHEN the judge made the order under Section 24 the husband was bound to obey it. But if he does not obey in terms of the order passed by the judge the court can enforce obedience to its order by staying the proceedings if the party in default is the petitioner. If the order is in favour of the petitioner, and the respondent is in default, the court will strike off the defence. This is how courts enforce their orders. The power of the , court to stay the proceedings or to strike off the defence of a defendant in order to compel obedience to its order or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court has long been recognised. (See Codd v. Codd, AIR 1924 Bombay 132; Masih v. Masih, AIR 1941 Allahabad 93, Malkan Rani v. Krishan Kumar, AIR 1961 Punjab 42; Ami a v. Birendra Chandra, AIR 1962 Calcutta 88; Bhuneshwar Prasad v. Dropta Bai AIR 1963 Madhya Pradesh 259; B. M Nidu v. Shanta