High CourtsSingle Bench

Kanti Devi vs Balbir Singh

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 9 August 1989 · Citation: (1990) 1 DMC 35

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.S. Dewan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
F.A.O. No. 235-M of 1987
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 292 words

S.S. Dewan, J.—Smt. Kanti Devi has filed this appeal against the judgment dated November 3, 1987, passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby her petition u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the decree of divorce against her husband Balbir Singh has been dismissed. On an application filed by the appellant u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. M.S. Liberhan, J. passed an order on July 29, 1988, that the respondents should pay Rs. 600/- as litigation expenses and further sum of Rs. 200/- per month as maintenance pendents life from the date of filing of appeal in this Court. Till today the respondent has not paid anything to his wife and the order of this Court awarding maintenance and litigation expenses has not been complied with. The case is on the board of this Court for quite some time. Even during this period, the respondents has not come forward to make any payment to the appellant. This fact has not been denied by the learned counsel for the respondent. In view of this attitude of the respondent-husband, the learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the appeal may be accepted and the defence of the respondent-husband may be struck off. In support of his contention, he has relied on two decisions of this Court reported in Smt. Parkasho v. Lachhman Singh 1977 HLR 334 and Smt. Swarno Devi v. Piara Ram 1975 HLR 15. The learned counsel for the respondent is unable to controvert this proposition of law.

2.

In view of what is stated above, I strike off the defence of the respondent-husband and accept this appeal with the result that the suit of the appellant is hereby decreed. There is, however, no order as to costs.