ORDER

1. Arising out of the main proceedings instituted by respondent/husband under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, this miscellaneous petition has been filed by petitioner/wife challenging the order dated 25.6.2022 (Annexure P/6), whereby application filed by the petitioner under section 151 CPC dated 22.6.2022 has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband has taken preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the present petition on the ground that this petition has not been filed against any order of Family Court and there is no relief claimed in the petition for setting aside of any order. He further pointed out the order dated 23.5.2022 passed by this Court in W.P. No.10458/2022, whereby the petitioner's petition was dismissed, whereby the order passed by the Family Court reserving liberty with the petitioner to file execution proceeding to execute the order of maintenance, was upheld.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 17.1.2019, learned Family Court decided the application of the petitioner under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and fixed the maintenance pendent-lite @ Rs.20,000/- p.m. from the date of passing of the order.

4. He submits that learned Family Court has heard final arguments in the original case whereas the respondent has not complied with the order dated 17.1.2019 and has not deposited the entire amount of maintenance. Accordingly, he submits that an amount of Rs.6,35,000/- is due and unless this amount is not paid/deposited by the respondent/husband, the proceedings of the main case in question should be stayed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has already initiated execution proceedings, which fact has been suppressed by the petitioner from this Court. He further disputes any arrears of maintenance in pursuance of order dated 17.1.2019 and he submits that three days ago, an amount of Rs.70,000/- has been paid by the respondent/husband. Lastly, he submits that in the light of order passed by this Court on 23.5.2022 in W.P. 10458/2022, no further order is required to be passed and he prays for dismissal of the miscellaneous petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Undisputedly, the order dated 17.1.2019 has been passed in the pending proceedings under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act instituted by the respondent/husband and as per submissions made on behalf of the parties, the order dated 17.1.2019 is still in force and has not been modified by any Superior Court or even by Family Court.

8. It is also clear that while passing the order dated 23.5.2022, the recent decision of Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha & Another (2021) 2 SCC 324 as well as other binding decisions were not brought to the notice of this Court, in which it has been held as under:

Striking off the Defence

118. Some Family Courts have passed orders for striking of the defence of the respondent in case of nonpayment of maintenance, so as to facilitate speedy disposal of the maintenance petition. In Kaushalya vs. Mukesh Jain, the Supreme Court allowed a Family Court to strike of the defence of the respondent, in case of non-payment of maintenance in accordance with the interim order passed.

119. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Bani vs. Parkash Singh, AIR 1996 P&H 175 was considering a case where the husband failed to comply with the maintenance order, despite several notices, for a period of over two years. The Court taking note of the power to strike of the defence of the respondent, held that:

"Law is not that powerless as not to bring the husband to book. If the husband has failed to make the payment of maintenance and litigation expenses to wife, his defence be struck out. "

120. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Mohinder Verma v. Sapna, discussed the issue of striking of the defence in the following words:

"8. Section 24 of the Act empowers the matrimonial court to a