Judicial Opinion Summary: B.A. Khan, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner filed a matrimonial petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a decree of divorce. The respondent filed an application under Sections 24 and 26 for pendente lite maintenance on 12.2.1973, seeking maintenance for herself and for the respondent's son born out of wedlock, Saurabh Mani. The Trial Court awarded Rs. 600 per month to the respondent and Rs. 400 per month to the minor child.

The respondent later initiated execution proceedings No. 29/93 claiming Rs. 3,433 as arrears of maintenance. The petitioner objected, contending that pendente lite maintenance was not payable to Saurabh after he attained majority on 12.2.1991 and had obtained employment with a salary of Rs. 9,000 per month. The Executing Court rejected the petitioner's objection on the ground that the petitioner should have sought modification of the Trial Court order.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether pendente lite maintenance awarded to Saurabh Mani continued to be enforceable after he attained majority on 12.2.1991.
2. Whether arrears of maintenance computed for the period after Saurabh's majority are payable by the petitioner.
3. Whether the Executing Court was correct in rejecting the petitioner's objection on the ground that the petitioner ought to have sought modification of the Trial Court's order.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

• The petitioner objected to payment of arrears claimed in execution proceedings on the ground that Saurabh Mani was not entitled to pendente lite maintenance after attaining majority on 12.2.1991.
• The petitioner asserted that Saurabh had taken employment and was earning Rs. 9,000 per month, further supporting that maintenance should cease on attaining majority.

Respondent's Position (as reflected in the record)

• The respondent initiated execution proceedings claiming Rs. 3,433 as arrears of maintenance. The detailed substantive arguments of the respondent opposing the petitioner's objection are not set out in the provided opinion.

Executing Court's Reasoning

• The Executing Court rejected the petitioner's plea that arrears after 12.2.1991 were not payable, on the basis that the petitioner ought to have sought a modification of the Trial Court's order.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court accepted (and recorded) that Saurabh Mani was not entitled to pendente lite maintenance after he attained majority on 12.2.1991. Based on that factual and legal premise, the court concluded that any arrears computed for the period after 12.2.1991 were not payable by the petitioner and, consequently, to that extent the Trial Court order became unenforceable.

The court therefore held that the Executing Court's impugned order — which had rejected the petitioner's objection on procedural grounds (that the petitioner should have sought modification) — could not sustain enforcement of amounts not lawfully payable. The impugned order was set aside to the limited extent that it sought to enforce arrears of maintenance payable to Saurabh after 12.2.1991.

The court left intact the possibility of execution in respect of any other outstanding amounts legitimately due from the petitioner, i.e., execution may proceed insofar as amounts other than the post-12.2.1991 arrears for Saurabh remain outstanding.

Holding and Implications

The petition was allowed to the extent that arrears of pendente lite maintenance payable to Saurabh Mani after 12.2.1991 are not enforceable; the Executing Court's order is set aside to that extent.

Implications:

• Direct effect: The petitioner is not liable to pay arrears of pendente lite maintenance to Saurabh Mani for any period after 12.2.1991 when he attained majority; the Executing Court's order is modified to reflect that conclusion.
• Execution may continue only in respect of any other amounts legitimately outstanding against the petitioner (i.e., other than the post-12.2.1991 arrears for Saurabh).
• No broader precedent or additional legal principle beyond the direct application to these facts is articulated in the opinion.

Disposition recorded in the opinion: "Petition allowed accordingly."