a) The case examined the meaning of the expression 'proceedings under the Act' in Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - It was held that the expression could not be given narrow and restricted meaning under the Act - It was further held that the application for maintenance pendente lite during pendency of application under Order 9, Rule 4, of the Civil Procedure Code was maintainable.
b) The case examined an application under Order 9, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for restoration of petition filed by the husband - The wife started proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings - It was held that the Court could not allow husband to withdraw his application for restoration so as to adversely affect the wife's remedy under Section 24
c) The case examined the proceedings for maintenance pendente lite and the expenses of the same under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - It was held that the provision under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was not inconsistent with the provision of the Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
Bombay High Court
Vinod Kimar Kejriwal vs Usha Vinod Kejriwal on 20 March, 1992
Equivalent citations: AIR 1993 Bom 160, 1992 (2) BomCR 648, I (1993) DMC 32
Bench: A Savant
