The main legal point established in the judgment is that the liability to pay interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act subsists 'during the proceeding,' and a stay of proceedings does not absolve the petitioner from this liability.

The Order of the Court was as follows :

Judgment-debtor, who is the husband in H.M.O.P. No. 53 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Poonamallee, is the revision petitioner.

2. Petitioner moved an application for restitution of conjugal rights under S. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In that application, respondent herein filed I.A. No. 210 of 1986, seeking interim maintenance and litigation expenses. On 30-9-1989, Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 500/- per month as interim maintenance and litigation expenses of Rs. 1,000/-. Petitioner was directed to pay interim maintenance from 26-6-1986. Though the matter was challenged in C.R.P. No. 3037 of 1989, the same was dismissed by this Court on 30-3-1992. Thereafter, the matter was taken before the trial Court and since it was represented that the order has not been complied with, on 4-12-1992, it stayed all the further proceedings in the case. The order reads thus :

(Vernacular matter omitted ...Ed.)

3. Respondent filed E.P. No. 44 of 1999, seeking execution of order. She claimed that a sum of Rs. 75,700/- is due to her till 23-5-1999 i.e. the date of E.P. She wanted to realise the amount by arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor. Petitioner filed serious objections to the E.P. and by order dated 19-11-1999, it was found that the petitioner is liable to be arrested.

4. After the order was passed on 19-11-1999 and before the C.R.P. was filed on 1-12-1999, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards arrears of maintenance and on 6-12-1999, a further amount of Rs. 26,867/- was paid.

5. According to the petitioner, once the proceedings have been stayed as per order dated 4-12-1992, he is not liable to pay interim maintenance and the amount already paid by him would satisfy the claims of the respondent. According to the petitioner, once the Court orders stay of proceedings, for all practical purposes, the proceedings under S. 9 comes to an end and when there is no order under S. 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the respondent is not entitled to recover any amount after the order of stay.

6. This argument was not put forward before the lower Court and Executing Court found that the petitioner is bound to pay the entire amount of Rs. 75,700/- till the date of E.P. The only question that requires consideration in the E.P. is, whether the petitioner is bound to pay interim maintenance even during the period while the proceedings have been stayed.

7. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of a learned single Judge of Delhi High Court reported in 1984 AIR(Delhi) 301 (Jai Rani v. Om Prakash) in support of his contention. It is true that the said decision supports the case of the petitioner. In para 8 of the judgment, the learned Judge held thus :

"Where on a petition under S. 9 by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights an application under S. 24 was made by the wife for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses the husband was ordered to pay a certain sum as litigation expenses and maintenance and on failure of the husband to pay the amount the proceedings were stayed the wife would be entitled to recover from the husband monthly maintenance allowance only up to the date of the stay was ordered but not after that. It could not be said that the wife can claim maintenance allowance as long as the husband's petition is not dismissed or decreed.

8. Before considering the said judgment, let us consider what S. 24 of the Act provided. Section 24 reads thus :"

Where in any proceeding under this act it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, i