Madhuben Mahendra Goswami vs Mahendra Amrutgargoswamt on 22 April, 1975
In Smt. Malkan Rani v. Krishan Kumar , a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court consisting of Bishan Narain and I.D. Dua, JJ., has observed:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.37 seconds)Documents citing
Smt. Malkan Rani vs Krishan Kumar on 21 April, 1960
Jai Rani vs Om Parkash Saini on 7 October, 1983
(See Malkan Rani v. Krishan Kumar, ).
Neeta Shreyas Joshi vs Shreyas Siddharth Joshi on 23 February, 1999
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has also taken support from the
decisions in the cases of Smt. Malkan Rani (AIR 1961 Punjab 42) (supra) and Smt. Anita Karmokar (AIR 1962 Calcutta 88) (supra) decided by the Punjab and Calcutta High Courts, respectively, as discussed above.
Sm. Anita Karmokar And Anr. vs Birendra Chandra Karmokar on 23 May, 1961
36. I have already stated what inconvenience may ensue if execution be held to be the only method of enforcement of an order made under Section 24 of the Act. I find nothing in the scheme of the Hindu Marriage Act which is opposed to the staying of a matrimonial action, for example, for non-compliance with an order made under Section 24 of the Act, in exercise of the inherent power of the Court. This is the view which was also taken in , Malkan Rani v. Krishan Kumar and I respectfully agree with that view.
Bhuneshwar Prasad vs Dropta Bai on 22 December, 1962
4. Section 28 on which reliance was placed by the petitioner does not stand in the way of enforcement of an order under Section 24, by staying the proceedings until the order is carried out. That provision only says that all decrees and orders made by the court in any proceeding under the Act shall be enforced in like manner as the decrees and orders of the court made in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction are enforced, and may be appealed from under any law for the time being in force. The proceedings are stayed by the Court in the exercise of its inherent powers for non-compliance with an order under Section 24. The stay itself is clearly not the execution of the order. The proceedings are stayed for the purpose of enabling the party in whose favour the order has been made to execute it in the manner provided in Section 28 and recover the amount of maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceeding so that he or she may be in a position to defend the proceeding. The view I have taken is fully supported by the decisions in Malkan Rani v. Krishan Kumar, AIR 1961 Punj 42 and Sm. Anita v. Birendra Chandra, AIR 1962 Cal 88, where it has been held that if there is any non-compliance with an order made under Section 24 of the Act, the Court can in the exercise of its inherent powers stay the matrimonial action.
Ghasiram Das vs Srimati Arundhati Das And Anr. on 17 September, 1993
Their Lordships of Punjab High Court in the decision reported in AIR 1961 Punj 42 (Smt. Malkan Rani v. Krishan Kumar) have expressed that Section 28 (now Section 28A) gives the right to a party to recover such an amount by taking execution proceedings but it does not affect the Court's power to exercise its jurisdiction equitably and in such a way as to prevent abuse of its process.
Jai Singh vs Smt. Khimi Bhiklu And Anr. on 23 February, 1978
Dealing with such a situation, Dhillon, J. has referred to the earlier decision of that High Court given in Smt. Malkan Rani (supra) wherein it was observed that stay of proceedings might not be adequate and other steps might have to be taken to put the indigent spouse in funds to prosecute the proceedings, and if the defaulter wilfully neglects or wilfully refuses to comply with the order then there was no reason why contempt proceedings in
accordance with law should not be taken against the defaulter. After referring to the above decision in Malkan Rani (AIR 1961 Punj 42), Dhillon, J. observes (at p. 41 of AIR 1973 Punj):
Jyotsna Raje vs Jagpal Singh on 11 August, 1961
It is true that he has disallowed the prayer for deciding the question of expenses and maintenance pendente lire before trying the merits of the case, but that in my opinion is more due to an error of judgment than to a deliberate or conscious desire to show any favour to the husband. It is unfortunate that on behalf of the husband the attention of the learned Judge should not have been invited to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Shrimati Malkan Rani v. Krishan Kumar, 1960-62 Pun LR 575 : (AIR 1961 Punj 42) where it has been succinctly stated that if the amounts of expenses and maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act are not made available to the applicant immediately, then its object and purpose stands defeated.
Ram Swaroop vs Janak W/O. Ram Swaroop on 5 May, 1972
In my view, when conditional orders are passed by this Court, the inherent power vested under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be exercised in order to see that the said orders are complied with. There is no specific procedure for the compliance of the said order either under the Hindu Marriage Act or in the Civil Procedure Code and there is no other provisions forbidding the same course being adopted. A similar matter came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in a case reported in Smt. Malkan Rani v. Krishan Kumar, AIR 1961 Punj 42. In that case, the trial court directed the husband, who was the petitioner in that case, to pay the wife maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses but the said order was not complied with. The wife then made an application before the trial court that the proceedings be stayed till the said order was complied with. That application was rejected by the trial court. On appeal filed in this court, the case was referred to the Division Bench and the appeal was accepted with costs. It was held that keeping in view the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, it is obvious that the realisation of the amount as ordered under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act by taking execution proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the code of Civil Procedure must plunge the indigent spouse into another lengthy and unpleasant litigation and moreover, the matrimonial Court will find it difficult, if not impossible, to decide the case satisfactorily or expeditiously, which will result in denial of justice to the person in whose favour the order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been passed.
Anuradha @ Chanchal Kumari vs Santosh Nath Khanna on 9 April, 1975
(10) So far as the exercise of powers in case under the Hindu Marriage Act are concerned, reference may be made to Smt. Malkan Rani v. Krishan Kumar, , where a Division Bench of the High Court, of which I.D. Dua J. (as he then was), was a party, observed that section 24 empowered the matrimonial court, to make an order for maintenance pendente lite and for exit penses of proceedings to a needy and indigent spouse. The Bench observed, "the object and purpose of this provision is to enable the court to see that the indigent spouse is put in a financial condition in which the party concerned may produce proper material and evidence in the case and that a party is not handicapped in or prevented from bringing all the relevant facts before the court for decision of the case because of his or her poverty". The court further observed that section 28 of the Act laid down the procedure for recovery of the amount due under the order made under section 24 of the Act. But the same did not affect the court's power to exercise jurisdiction equitably and in such a way as to prevent abuse of its process.