Paramjeet Singh, J.
CM No. 19500-C II of 2013 Allowed as prayed for. Annexures R1 to R4 are taken on record.
Civil Revision No. 3170 of 2013
1. Instant revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 27.2.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula,
whereby earlier order dated 28.1.2012 has been modified to the extent that maintenance u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short ''the HMA'')
has been allowed to be paid from 1.12.2011 instead of the date of application u/s 24 of the HMA i.e. 28.10.2010. I have heard learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that no application for condonation of delay was filed along with application for
review. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that once the order on merits has been passed by the court u/s 24 of the HMA, same
cannot be reviewed only on the ground that u/s 125 Cr.P.C. the maintenance has been awarded and some compromise has been effected.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that once the
compromise has been effected between the parties then the court is bound to amend the order accordingly and the order has rightly been amended
by the court. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that petitioner had agreed to accept the maintenance from 1.12.2011; as such
the order is perfect on all aspects and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
4. I have considered the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties.
5. From the perusal of record it is clear that earlier vide order dated 28.1.2012, the maintenance u/s 24 of the HMA was awarded from the date
of application, which was filed on 28.10.2010. Prior to that proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C. were also going on which became final in view of the
order passed by learned CJM, Mohali on 8.12.2011, wherein statement was made by the petitioner that she would accept the maintenance at the
rate of Rs. 7,000/- per month w.e.f. 1.12.2011. Merely because in proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C. petitioner agreed to accept maintenance from
1.12.2011, inference cannot be drawn that order passed therein will have effect on the order passed by the matrimonial court u/s 24 of the HMA.
There is no indication in the order dated 8.12.2011 nor there appears to be any agreement between the parties in proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C.
that the order passed in the application u/s 24 of the HMA shall also be modified accordingly. If there would have been any compromise between
the parties regarding proceedings u/s 24 of the HMA, this must have been made clear in the said order dated 8.12.2011. By implication it cannot
be taken that order passed in proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C. will have effect on the order passed in HMA proceedings. Firstly, the order cannot be
reviewed without proper application; secondly when there is no specific averment that order u/s 24 of the HMA is also required to be modified
then the court cannot presume that since the parties have agreed in proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C. to receive the maintenance with effect from
certain date, the agreement would also be applicable to proceedings u/s 24 HMA. Rather the presumption is that maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C.
shall be w.e.f. 1.12.2011. It is otherwise settled principle of law that the maintenance u/s 24 of the HMA is only an interim maintenance. It only
operates till the finalization of the proceedings u/s 13 of the HMA. In view of above, present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is
set aside.
