Asha Rani vs Yash Pal

G.C. Garg, J.—This is wife''s appeal against the judgment dated August 3, 1987 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divoree on the grounds of desertion and cruelty.

The decree of divorce was passed on a petition filed by the husband-respondent and after returning a finding that the appellant had deserted her husband for a continuous period of more than two years and treated him with cruelty. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court, an application was filed by the wife-appellant, dated September 21, 1987, u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. Notice of this application was given to the husband-respondent, and after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, K.P. Bhandart, J. passed the following order on April 18, 1990 :

"I am of the opinion that interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 800/-per month should be fixed from the date of application. In addition, rupees 1000/- is fixed as litigation expenses. The respondent is directed to make payment to the appellant-applicant within one month. C.Ms. are disposed of accordingly."

Learned Counsel for the appellant has made a statement in Court that no payment on the aforesaid counts has so far been made by the respondent. Learned Counsel for the respondent has not been able to controvert the stand taken by learned Counsel for the appellant.

Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that since the husband- respondent has failed to pay the maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses, as ordered by the Court, his defence should be struck off. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel referred to the observations made in Shrimati Swarno Devi v. Shri Piara Ram 1975 H.L.R. 15, wherein it was held that on the failure of the husband to make payment of the litigation expenses and maintenance pendente lite, his defence deserves to be struck off. In the reported case, the appeal of the wife was allowed solely on the ground that the husband had not paid the litigation expenses and maintenance pendente lite in spite of the orders passed by the Court in that behalf. A similar view has also been taken in Smt. Parkasho v. Lachhman Singh 1977 H.L.R. 334 and Amarjit Kaur v. Sohan Singh 1979 P.L.R. 749.

Following the view taken by this Court, as noticed above, I strike off the defence of the husband-respondent and resultantly accept the appeal. The decree under appeal is set aside and petition filed by the husband-respondent u/s 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.