Raghbir Singh vs Birmati

V.K. Jhanji, J.—On 7.8.1995 in CM. No. 30-M of 1995 iN F.A.O. No. 101-M of 1994, respondent was awarded maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month. In this application filed for a direction to the appellant to pay maintenance pendente lite, it has been averred that the payment has not been made to the applicant by the appellant towards maintenance pendente lite.

On reading of the judgment of Additional District judge, Kaithal, against which F.A.O. No. 101-M of 1994 has been filed, I find that petition u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, of the appellant to seek a decree of divorce, has been dismissed.

Notice of this application for payment of maintenance pendente lite was given to the counsel for the appellant but despite many opportunities given for the purpose, payment has not been made till date. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the sole purpose of the appellant in not making payment to the applicant is to harass her. A Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Malkan Rani Vs. Krishan Kumar, , in the context of execution of the order u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has held that there being no provision in the CPC under which pendente lite maintenance and litigation expenses can be recovered, the Court has to exercise inherent power to advance the cause of justice though in the process the indigent spouse must benefit. The Court also held that when the Court is exercising this inherent power, then it haste take into consideration all circumstances of the case and then come to the conclusion whether the justice requires the proceedings to be adjourned or to be stayed till payment is made. In case where defaulter''s spouse has initiated proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, stay of proceedings may not be adequate and other steps may have to be taken to put the indigent spouse in funds to prosecute the proceedings.

In the present case, as noticed, the appellant has been given enough opportunity to comply with the order but he has neither complied with the order nor has given any reasonable ground for noncompliance of the order. In view of this, the appeal filed by him deserves to be dismissed and it is so ordered.