1. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. She has come up with this revision challenging the order dated 07.08.2012 made in I.A.No.1204 of 2012 in H.M.O.P.No.247 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Salem.

2. The facts leading to this revision are as follows:-The respondent herein, earlier filed H.M.O.P.No.114 of 1999 against the petitioner herein for judicial separation. During the pendency of the same, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.220 of 2000 seeking interim maintenance pending disposal of the HMOP No.114 of 1999 and also for litigation expenses. The learned Subordinate Judge, Erode allowed the said interim application thereby directing the respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance. Challenging the same, the respondent filed revision in C.R.P. No.2380 of 2004 before this Court. This court, by order dated 08.09.2006, modified the order of the learned Subordinate Judge and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/-per month towards maintenance.

3. According to the petitioner, in pursuance of the said order for interim maintenance, the maintenance amount was not paid by the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner filed an execution petition in E.P.No.200 of 2002 and the same was pending. During that time, the respondent paid a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- towards arrears. As per the order of this Court 75% of the said amount has already been withdrawn by the petitioner. It is the further contention of the petitioner that thereafter no more amount was paid towards interim maintenance.

4. While so, the said H.M.O.P.No.114 of 1999 was dismissed for default on 25.02.2002. The same was not later on restored.

5. Subsequently, the respondent has filed H.M.O.P.No.19 of 2005 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Erode, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty which was subsequently transferred to the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Salem and renumbered as H.M.O.P.No.247 of 2008. The petitioner herein has made appearance before the trial court and has filed a counter. The respondent herein was examined as P.W.1. At that stage, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.1204 of 2012 seeking to strike off all the defences made by the respondent herein in H.M.O.P.No.247 of 2008 or in the alternative to dismiss H.M.O.P.No.247 of 2008. By order dated 07.08.2012, the learned Principal District Judge, Salem, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is now before this Court with this revision petition.

6. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records carefully.

7. According to the petitioner, after having allowed the earlier petition in H.M.O.P.No.1149 of 1999 to be dismissed for default, the respondent herein has filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.247 of 2008 with false allegations. It is further contended that the earlier petition in H.M.O.P.No.114 of 1999 was allowed to be dismissed for default only with a view to avoid payment of interim alimony pendente lite as directed by this court in C.R.P.No.2380 of 2004. Having failed to pay the said amount, it is not open for the respondent to maintain H.M.O.P.No.247 of 2008. Thus, according to the petitioner, either defences available to the respondent in the said H.M.O.P. should be struck off or in the alternative, H.M.O.P. itself should be dismissed.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Section 24 of The Hindu Marriages Act [herein after referred to as "the Act"] is a benevolent provision for the needy spouse and the same cannot be allowed to be defeated in the manner in which an attempt has been made in this case by the respondent herein. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of this court in R. Kuppusamy v. Kanagalakshmi, 1997 (III) CTC 442 in order to substantiate his contention that the order made under Section 24 of the Act can be executed even after the termination of the main petition. The learned counsel a