Interim order for maintenance to wife shall stand even if main petition is dismissed or disposed of.

(Revision Petition filed against the order dated 11.6.2004, in I.A.No.9/2004 in H.M.O.P.No.88/2003, on the file of the Sub Judge, Tirupattur.)

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 11.6.2004 passed in I.A.No.9/2004 in H.M.O.P.No.88/2003 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur.

2. The husband who filed H.M.O.P.No.88/2003 on the file of Sub-Judge, Thirupathur for restoration of conjugal rights is the revision petitioner before this court. The 1st respondent/wife filed I.A.No.9/2004 under Sec.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance for herself and for her 4 years old minor son and also litigation and medical expenses. By order dated 11.6.2004, I.A.No.9/2004 was allowed exparte granting interim maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month each to the wife and the son, a sum of Rs.2000/- for litigation expenses and another sum of Rs.1500/- for medical expenses. Aggrieved against the order dated 11.6.2004 the husband has filed this Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondents despite the notice having been served on them.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner was not pressing the main petition itself, i.e., H.M.O.P.No.88/2003 there was no question of passing any orders for maintenance in I.A.No.9/2004. He relied on the judgment of this court reported in 1989-I-L.W. 342 (Ranganatham v. Shyamala).

5. The Sub-Judge on 11.6.2004 passed the order for maintenance after considering the fact that even though the husband is not pressing the main O.P., no order of dismissal is passed till that date. Thereafter he proceeded to pass the order under challenge before me to avoid the starvation of the wife and the tender aged child.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that when the husband is not pressing the main O.P., orders should have been passed in the O.P. only by dismissing the same and not in the Application for maintenance. I am unable to accept this contention. The matrimonial court has got power to award maintenance and litigation expenses under Sec.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act even if the main petition is dismissed or disposed of. I draw support for this proposition in the judgment of this court reported in 1997 (III) CTC 442 (R.Kuppusamy v. Kangalakshmi), wherein the court held as follows:-

"6. Petitioner seriously opposed the maintainability of the execution petition and the right of the respondents herein to recover the amount. The main objection raised was that when the main petition for restitution of conjugal rights itself stands dismissed, order passed on the interlocutory applications also ceases to have any force and, therefore, inexecutable.

7. The said contention of the petitioner was rejected by the lower Court, and the execution was allowed to proceed. That order is challenged in this Revision.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner repeated his argument as put forward before the executing court, i.e., the order on interlocutory application ceases to have any force after the main petition itself stands dismissed.

9. After hearing learned counsel on both sides, I feel that the said argument cannot hold good. In Krishnan v. Thailambal, 1969 (I) M.L.J. 328, a similar question came for consideration. There, after getting an order of interim maintenance, the main application was allowed to be withdrawn. The person in whose favour interim order was passed, sought to implement the interim order. The question was, when the main application has been allowed to be dismissed as withdrawn, whether the interim order could be executed. A learned Judge of this Court (Justice K.S.Venkataraman) held thus:-

"Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act contains no limitation that an order for interim maintenance and expenses made thereunder will cease to have force if the husband against whom the order is passed chooses to withdraw the proceedings for nullity of marriag