An order passed on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act could be executed and the fruits of the order could be recovered even after the disposal of the main petition.

Judgment-debtor in O.P.No.358 of 1988, on the file of Additional Family Court Judge, Madras, is the revision petitioner.

2. Petitioner herein filed the above petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Pending litigation, respondent herein moved applications as I.A.Nos.153 and 154 of 1988, under Sec.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for interim maintenance and litigation expenses. After hearing both sides, an Order was passed on 110. 1989, directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.400 per mensem from 1. 1989 till the disposal of the main petition, and also Rs.500 towards litigation expenses. A month’s time was granted for payment of the same, which was subsequently extended on the application of the petitioner.

3. In spite of time being granted, petitioner did not pay the amount and, therefore, noncompliance of the Court’s direction, the main O.P. itself was dismissed. In the meanwhile, the respondent also moved the Criminal Court under Sec. 125, Cr.P.C. for getting interim maintenance.

4. To implement the Order in I.A.Nos.153 and 154 of 1988 and to recover the amount awarded, respondent herein filed E.P.No.5 of 1991. On receipt of the notice of E.P., petitioner herein contended that since the main Petition itself is dismissed, nothing survives on the interim order.

5. Respondent also sought for attachment of pension payable to the petitioner, for recovery of the amount due to her.

6. Petitioner seriously opposed the maintainability of the Execution Petition and the right of the respondent 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 Corut, and the execution was allowed to proceed. That Order is challenged in this revision.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner repeated his arguments as put forward before the executing Court, i.e., the Order on Interlocutory Applications 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)1 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:

”Sec.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 marriage initiated by him. When the husband chooses to drag the wife to the Court by filing a proceeding and if it is shown that the wife has no independent income, the husband must necessarily provide her with interim maintenance and the necessary expenses and he cannot be allowed to wipe out this liability after the order is passed by choosing to withdraw from the petition. His being allowed to do so would only amount to harassment of the wife, for the expenses might have already been incurred by the wife. Sec.24 applies not merely to the respondent in the main, petition but could also be invoked by the petitioner in the main petition itself, whether it be the wife or the husband. When the provisions is of such a far reaching character, it would defeat the purpose of the provision of the Court were to hold that the benefit of the section is to depend on the caprice of the petitioner in not choosing to proceed with the main petition."

A Division Bench of