JUDGMENT S.D. Anand, J.:- The petitioner herein has a grievance that the learned Trial/Executing Court ought to have refrained from granting the impugned order in view of the announced pendency of a matter before this Court on the revisional side. The plea raised is that the non-grant of a stay order by this Court does not affect the validity of the plea raised and a subordinate Court must unnecessarily stay its hands off the moment the pendency of the matter before a higher Forum is announced. Reliance, in support of the advocated view, is placed upon 2007(2) Civil Court Cases 512 (Bombay), Kishor Vs. Preeti. 2. I have not been able to persuade myself to accept the plea. The reasons therefor are as under:- 3. It is apparent from the record that a divorce plea filed by the petitioner-husband against the respondent-wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge, vide order dated 04.11.2009. It was for realization of the arrears of the maintenance pendente lite and the litigation expenses that the execution application was filed by the respondent-wife. The award of maintenance pendente-lite and the litigation expenses had been ordered by the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 05.09.2009. The respondent-wife had been thereby held entitled to maintenance pendente-lite at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month (with effect from the institution of the divorce petition) and the litigation expenses of Rs.2100/-. The proceedings of the divorce petition were adjourned on 05.09.2009 to 12.10.2009 and the petitioner-husband was directed to pay up on the next date of hearing. The order was not complied with and the matter was again adjourned to 04.11.2009 with a similar direction. On that date too, the order was not complied with and the defence of the petitioner was ordered to be struck off. As a consequence thereof, the divorce petition was dismissed by the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 04.11.2009. 4. On the presentation of the execution application, the petitioner-husband entered appearance on notice and the matter was adjourned to 22.12.2009 for making payment. As the amount was not paid up, the matter came to be adjourned, thereafter, on 18.01.2010 and 25.02.2010. It was thereafter that the petitioner – husband filed a plea before the learned Executing Court for the stay of the proceedings. As the amount was not paid up, the matter came to be adjourned, thereafter, on 18.01.2010 and 25.02.2010. It was thereafter that the petitioner – husband filed a plea before the learned Executing Court for the stay of the proceedings. The plea did not find favour with the learned Trial Court which observed that it was not under compulsion to stay the proceedings in the absence of any stay orders granted by this Court. 5. The approach of the learned Trial Court can not be faulted on any valid score. In view of the conceded position that there was no stay order in force, it was not incumbent upon the learned Trial Court to stay its hands off. The judgment in Kishor’s case (supra) came to be granted by Bombay High Court in view of the peculiar facts. In that case, the Court had once granted an order and allowed the proposed amendment. Thereafter, the concerned Court disallowed that “amendment by a subsequent order while considering the application of the present petitioner for framing additional issue.” It was under those circumstances that the Bombay High Court held that since the matter was pending consideration before the High Court, the Trial Court ought to have to stayed its hands off. The facts of that case have no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner-husband is proved on record to have contumaciously violated the orders of the Trial Court by not complying with the order directing the payment of litigation expenses and maintenance pendente-lite in favour of the respondent-wife. The petition shall stand dismissed in limine accordingly. -------------------