JUDGMENT : J.M. SHETH, J. 1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner-wife against the opponent-husband against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Rajkot, dated 1-4-1975, below Ext. 19 in Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1973, refusing to stay the appeal filed by the present petitioner against the opponent-husband against the decree passed by the trial Court granting divorce till the opponent complies with the order passed by the Court in application, Ext. 5, filed by the wife under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (which will be hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), claiming interim alimony and costs of the application. The court passed the said order on 27-9-1973, ordering the opponent-husband to pay to the wife Rs. 20/- per month from 27-6-1973 and to pay a further sum of Rs. 150/- as costs for the prosecution of the aforesaid appeal. It appears that the husband did not comply with that order and did not deposit any amount ordered by the Court. Therefore, the wife filed the aforesaid application, Ex. 19, requesting the Court to pass an order that the husband should immediately pay up to her the amount as ordered by the Court and if he fails to do so, the proceedings in the aforesaid appeal be stayed. 2. The learned District Judge, Rajkot, dismissed that application on the ground that the husband who has already got a divorce decree may not be interested in seeing that this appeal is disposed of, and so staying of the proceeding; of the appeal will not be in the interest of the petitioner-wife. It is on that ground that he has turned down the request of the petitioner wife. 3. I have considered a similar question in Civil Revision Application No. 1219 of 1974, decided on 22nd April, 1975. I have referred to several decisions. One of the important decisions referred to therein is the decision of a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in Smt. Malkan Rant v. Krishan Kumar, AIR 1961 Punjab 42. The observations made therein are : "Where in proceedings by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights, the Court directs under section 24 the husband to pay the wife maintenance pendente and the litigation expenses, the Court has inherent power to stay the proceedings till the husband paid the amount which he has been ordered to pay under section 24. The observations made therein are : "Where in proceedings by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights, the Court directs under section 24 the husband to pay the wife maintenance pendente and the litigation expenses, the Court has inherent power to stay the proceedings till the husband paid the amount which he has been ordered to pay under section 24. The enforcement of the order otherwise than by execution is not prohibited or excluded by section 28. Section 24 empowers the matrimonial Court to make an order for - maintenance pendente We and for expenses of proceedings to a needy and indigent spouse. The object and purpose of this provision is to enable the Court to see that the indigent spouse is put in a financial condition in which the party concerned may produce proper material and evidence in the case and that a party is not handicapped in or prevented from bringing all the relevant facts before the Court for decision of the case because of his or her poverty. If these amounts are not made available to the applicant under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act immediately, then its object and purpose will stand defeated, It will result in denial of justice to the person in whose favour the order under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been made. The Courts are not helpless in the matter and can use their inherent jurisdiction to avoid such consequences. Section 28 gives the right to a party to recover such an amount by taking execution proceedings but it does not affect the Court's power to exercise its jurisdiction equitably and in such a way as to prevent abuse of its process." After referring to several decisions, I have observed :- "In my opinion, these decisions lay down the correct principle and there is nothing in any of the two decisions of this Court, referred to by me earlier, which in any way militates against the view taken by different High Courts in the aforesaid decisions. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by those different High Courts. Similar view has been taken by a single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Bhueshwar Prasad v. Dropta Bai, AIR 1963 Madhya Pradesh 259. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by those different High Courts. Similar view has been taken by a single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Bhueshwar Prasad v. Dropta Bai, AIR 1963 Madhya Pradesh 259. I, therefore, feel no hesitation is reaching the conclusion that the Court in such a matrimonial proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, can, in exercise of its inherent power under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, order the stay of the proceeding. It is true that In the instant case; proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights were taken not by the husband opponent, but by the petitioner-wife and she has succeeded in the trial Court and it is against that decree, that the husband has filed an appeal. That is the reason why the learned District Judge has found it not desirable to order the stay of the hearing of the appeal, observing that it will not be in the interest of the wife. The husband may be interested in delaying the proceedings and such an order will give him a handle for the same. In my opinion, Courts will not be helpless in swell a situation also. There Is already a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the petitioner-wife. She can execute the decree. If the appellant-opponent moves the Court for staying the execution of such decree, he can be put to terms and be first asked to pay up all these amounts. Courts will have when such questions arise, to consider the relevant provisions of Order 41, Rules 5 and 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Suffice it to say at this stage, that Courts will not be quite helpless as has been apprehended by the learned District Judge. I therefore, find that it is a fit case for staying of the hearing of the appeal till the opponent, who is the appellant in the appeal before the District Court, pay the amounts claimed by the petitioner-wife (respondent in that appeal) in her application, (Ex. 19)." 4. It is true that, in the instant case, the position is a bit different. It is the wife who has lost in the trial Court and it is the husband who has succeeded and has got a decree for divorce in his favour. 19)." 4. It is true that, in the instant case, the position is a bit different. It is the wife who has lost in the trial Court and it is the husband who has succeeded and has got a decree for divorce in his favour. It is the wife who has filed the appeal against that order. But one has to keep in mind the provisions of section 15 of the Act. They are: "When a marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce and either there is no right of appeal against the decree or if there is such a right of appeal, the time for appealing has expired without an appeal having been presented, or an appeal has been presented but has been dismissed, it shall be lawful for either party to the marriage to marry again : Provided that it shall not be lawful for the respective parties to marry again unless at the date of such marriage at least one year has elapsed from the date of the decree in the Court of the first instance." It cannot, therefore, be said that the staying of the appeal will not in any way affect the opponent and the opponent will not be interested in seeing that the appeal is heard. In view of the provisions of section 15 of the Act, it is evident that the staying of the appeal, even though the appeal is filed by the wife, will be sufficiently deterrent. It will not be correct to say that the courts will be helpless. The learned District Judge way not justified in not granting the request of the petitioner in regard to the staying of the hearing of appeal. 5. Revision Petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned District Judge, dated 1-4-1975 dismissing application, Ex. 19, filed in Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1973, is set aside. That application is allowed and the hearing of Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1973 is stayed till the opponent-husband complies with the order passed by the learned District Judge below application Ex. 5, in that appeal. The opponent is directed to pay the costs of the petitioner in this revision petition, Rule is made absolute. Petition allowed.