APHC010052512025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 294/2025 Between: 1. LINGALA ANAND REDDY, S/O VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, HINDU, R/O D.NO. 2-30, VADHIREDDYPALLI, H/0 MUKKANDLAVARI -KOTHAPALLI, O.D CHERVU MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. LINGALA BHAVANI, W/o L.Ananda Reddy, Aged about 30 years, Hindu, R/o D. No .2-44, Nagi Reddy Palli village, Kadiri Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to Aggrieved the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kadiri in E.P.NOTi6/2022 IN H.M.O.P.NO. 114/2018 dated in Civil Judge, 22-01-2025 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders passed in E.P..No. 16 of 2022 in O.S.No. 114 of 2018 on the file of Court of the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Kadiri pending disposal of the C.R.P., and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 VS,J C.R.P.No.294 of 2025 1. INENI VENKATA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SAI MANOJ REDDY L The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.294 of 2025 ORDER: The petitioner herein, being the respondent before the Court below filed the present Civil Revision Petition challenging the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kadiri in E.P.No.16 of 2022 in H.M.O.P.No.114 of 2018 on 22.01.2025. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner herein filed H.M.O.P.No.114 of 2018 against the respondent herein seeking restitution of conjugal rights and a direction to the respondent herein to join and live with the petitioner. During the pendency of the above H.M.O.P., the respondent filed I.A.No.34 of 2019 in H.M.O.P.No.114 of 2018 under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month. The said I.A. was allowed in part and a sum of Rs.5,000/- was granted as pendente lite maintenance to the respondent herein from the date of the order and the petitioner herein was directed to make payment of the said maintenance amount on or before the 10th of each succeeding month. b) Subsequently, the H.M.O.P. was dismissed for default on 11.10.2022. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed E.P.No.16 of 2022 in I.A.No.34 of 2019 in H.M.O.P. No.114 of 2018 under Order XXI, Rules 22, 37 of CPC seeking to issue notice and enforce the order of maintenance, and for issuance of warrant under Order XXI Rule 38 of CPC. The Court below, by order dated 22.01.2025, allowed the Execution Petition and ordered issuance 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.294 of 2025 of arrest warrant against the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. When the Civil Revision Petition came up for admission on 09.04.2025, this Court granted interim suspension of the impugned order till the next date of hearing. The said interim order was extended until 15.07.2025. Thereafter, no further extension was granted. 4. Heard Mr.I.Venkata Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Sai Manoj Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the facts as stated in the affidavit and contended that as the main H.M.O.P. was dismissed for non- prosecution, the order passed in I.A.No.34 of 2019 which gets merged in the main case cannot be executed, and hence, the Execution Petition itself is not maintainable. 6. However, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned order and placed reliance on the order passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in C.R.P.(MD) No.760 of 2019 and C.M.P.(MD) NO.4631 of 2019, dated 28.11.2023. 7. This Court has carefully considered the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Madras High Court and the relevant legal provisions. Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, states as follows: 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.294 of 2025 “Section 28A – Enforcement of decrees and orders: All decrees and orders made by the court in any proceeding under this Act shall be enforced in the same manner as the decrees and orders of the court made in its original civil jurisdiction are enforced.” 8. In the order dated 28.11.2023 in C.R.P.(MD) No.760 of 2019 and C.M.P.(MD) NO.4631 of 2019 (referred to above), under similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Madras High Court referred to the judgments passed by various High Courts holding that an order passed on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act could be executed and the fruits of the order would be recovered even after disposal of the main petition. In the case before the Hon’ble High Court also, the main HMOP filed by the husband for divorce was dismissed for non-prosecution and there was an interim order granting interim maintenance to the wife. In view of the above settled position of law, the Hon’ble Madras High Court held as follows: “…..In my considered view, the petitioner is entitled for fruits of the order dated 14.03.2018 passed in I.A.No.99 of 2015 though the main H.M.O.P. was dismissed for non-prosecution.” 9. In view of the above legal position, it is clear that even after the H.M.O.P. filed by the husband was dismissed subsequently, interim orders were passed during the pendency of the said H.M.O.P. and accordingly, the interim maintenance to the wife can be enforced through execution proceedings. Hence, the petitioner’s responsibility to pay maintenance for the period during which the case was pending continues to remain in force. 6 VS,J C.R.P.No.294 of 2025 10. In view of the same and upon careful examination of the material on record and the legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly allowed the execution petition filed by the respondent/wife and no interference is warranted therewith. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :09.10.2025. KGR