Rashmi Mishra v. Indradeep Dubey, Saurabh Kumar Pandey

Shri Saurabh Pandey and Shri Indardeep Dubey, Advocates have filed their vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent, the same is taken on record.

The present first appeal has been filed against the order dated

26.09.2025 and 18.02.2026 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.2, Prayagraj in H.M.A. Case No. 1023 of 2021 (Kuldeep Mishra Vs. Rashmi Mishra), filed U/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1955'), by way of which the application being 9-Kha for execution of the order dated 15.02.2024 passed under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, has been rejected; and further a fine of Rs. 2000/- has also been imposed vide order dated 26.09.2025; and consequentially the case has been directed to proceed ex-parte and to lead to entire evidence, within a period of three days.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that consequentially vide order dated 18.02.2026, the recall application being 43-C, has also been rejected.

We have perused the impugned orders and we find that the appellant has moved an application for the payment of interim maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 1,72,000/- along with 5% increment, from the opposite party and the court below has merely proceeded on the basis that the High Court had directed the proceedings to be expedited vide its order dated 09.08.2022. It also appears from the record that earlier also an order dated 2 FAPLD No. 253 of 2026

02.08.2025 was passed to proceed ex parte, but the same was subsequently recalled and the appellant still did not file her written statement and again, vide order dated 18.02.2025, the proceedings were directed to be proceeded ex parte vide impugned order dated 26.09.2025.

We have also perused the impugned order dated 26.09.2025, by of which the application for payment of balance interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,72,000/- has also been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Pradeep Mehra Vs. Harijivan J. Jethwa and Ors., reported in 2024 165 RD 90 to state that, in execution/enforcement of an order i.e. the application of the appellant dated 20.03.2025 filed u/s 28-A of the Act, 1955 (9-Ga), the adjudication is limited to the issues relating to the execution i.e. discharge or satisfaction of the order and is intended to prevent multiplicity of the suit. The said provision contemplates that for executing an order, the executing court must not go beyond the order; but in the present case, the application u/s 28-A of the Act, 1955 has been merely rejected because the proceedings have been directed to proceed ex parte; and further the order passed under Section 24, has also been, effectively recalled.

Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that as far as the objection regarding maintainability is concerned, since, the order which was passed under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 i.e. for providing the interim maintenance, has also been limited by the order dated 26.09.2025, the said issue has attained finality and as such, the appeal against the order dated 26.09.2025 is maintainable.

In view of the aforesaid, we prima facie find that the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.2, Prayagraj has exceeded its jurisdiction while rejecting the application under Section 28-A of the Act, 1955 and it could not have limited the original order which was passed under Section 24 of the Act, 1955.

It also transpires from the record that the proceedings were initiated in the year 2021 and the appellant did not file her written statement, inspite of repeated time being granted to her and eventually, vide order dated

18.02.2025, the proceedings were directed to proceed ex parte. She had filed an application being 43(Ga) against the order dated 18.02.2026, 3 FAPLD No. 253 of 2026 which has also been rejected.

In view of the aforesaid, we find that in the interest of justice, by way of an interim measure, the opposite party (husband) is directed to deposit the entire amount due by way of an interim maintenance amount, as provided under Section 24 of the Act, before the court below (up to March, 2026) within a period of one month from today, and in case, the opposite party deposits the said maintenance amount, the appellant shall file her written statement before the trial court within a period of two months from today.

However, the amount deposited shall only be released to the appellant, subject to the filing of her written statement before the trial court.

List this case on 26.05.2026; and the appellant shall be at liberty to make a mention.

Registry is directed to list this case on the date fixed, showing the name of Shri Saurabh Pandey and Shri Indradeep Pandey, Advocates, as counsel for the respondent. March 25, 2026 Sumit K. (Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Atul Sreedharan,J.)