A court exercising powers under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act possesses inherent jurisdiction and power to vary, modify, rescind or temporarily suspend its previous order.

( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of two appeals, (FAO 226/74 and FAO 17/75) both of which have been filed by the wife against two orders of Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Additional District Judge, Delhi, who was trying the petition of the appellant for dissolution of marriage or judicial separation on the ground of alleged impotency and/or cruelty mentioned in sections 12 and 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 25 of 1955, (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Act ). 1. The material facts of the case arc that during the pendency of the petition of the wife, Mr. K. S. Sidhu. then presiding officer of the court below passed an order on 8th January, 1970 under section 24 of the Act directing the husband respondent to pay the wife maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 125. 00 per month with effect from the date of the application, besides another sum of Rs. 250. 00 on account of litigation expenses. This amount had been fixed with the consent of both the parties and the litigation expenses have been paid and the maintenance was also paid for two months.

( 2 ) IT appears that the court below felt that the appellant was delaying the production of her evidence in support of the petition and so on 25th March, 1970 Mr. Sidhu passed an order directing that the order of maintenance pendente lite would remain in abeyance during the period the wife continued her default in producing the evidence. This order has been reproduced in the impugned order and will be REFERRED TO to in detail hereinafter. Construction and legal effect of this order of Mr. Sidhu is the main subject of controversy before me.

( 3 ) FROM 25th March, 1970 up to 12th September, 1973 the wife, appellant before me, failed to produce her evidence, although her counsel has submitted that the fault did not lie entirely with the wife. However, the evidence commenced on 13th September, 1973 and the same has now been concluded.

( 4 ) ON 2nd November, 1973, the wife moved an application before the court below submitting that she had already examined five witnesses and had to examine other witnesses and that she be paid the arrears of maintenance for the period from 23rd February, 1970 to 31st October, 1973. This application was opposed on behalf of the husband on the ground that by the previous order of Mr. Sidhu, the payment of maintenance was suspended and so she was not entitled to recover the amount. The court below considered the matter and construed the order of Mr. Sidhu and came to the conclusion that the effect of the order was that the wife was to be wholly deprived of the amount of maintenance during the period she was in default in producing her witnesses and that she was entitled to recover it only with effect from 13th September, 1973. The court passed an order that the wife was not entitled to maintenance for the period from 25th March, 1970 to 12th September, 1973 and, therefore dismissed the application. This order, which was passed on 17th October, 1974 by Mr. Jagdish Chandra, has given rise to the first mentioned appeal in this court (FAO 226/74 ). In this appeal, the husband has filed cross-objections to the effect that in the circumstances of the case on a true construction of the order of Mr. Sidhu, the wife was entitled to maintenance only with effect from 18th September, 1974 when she had concluded her evidence and not from an earlier date when she had commenced producing evidence.

( 5 ) DURING the pendency of the proceedings, the wife moved another application dated 18th November, 1974 by which she prayed that in view of the previous order of the court she was entiled to payment of arrears of maintenance at least from 13th September. 1973 and that the husband be directed to pay the same and in default, his defence be struck off. This application was refused by the Judge below on the ground that since an appeal against the previous order was pending in the High Court, he could not strike off the defence and that it was open to the wife to recover the