CM-11940-CII-2017 in/and FAO-M-144-2017 –1–

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CM-11940-CII-2017 in/and
FAO-M-144-2017
Date of Decision:- 20.2.2018

Amit … Appellant

Versus

Renu … Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

Present:- Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

*****

M.M.S. BEDI, J.

On account of non payment of the maintenance allowance to

the respondent-wife with effect from year 2008, despite repeated directions

of the Court, the divorce petition filed by the appellant-husband was

dismissed by the lower Court. To drag the respondent-wife in litigation after

a delay of 922 days, appeal has been filed with an application for

condonation of delay. In order to test the bona fide of the appellant-husband,

in the interest of justice, on 19.12.2017 a direction was issued to the

appellant-husband to deposit a sum of ` 1 lac before issuing notice to the

respondent-wife. Earlier the appellant-husband was required to pay a sum of

` 2 lac vide order dated 10.8.2017 but taking into consideration the

difficulty reflected before this Court, it was required of the appellant-

husband to pay at least a sum of ` 1 lac, so that his claim for allowing the

appeal could be seen and an opportunity could be granted to him for

1 of 2
04-03-2018 17:25:45 :::
CM-11940-CII-2017 in/and FAO-M-144-2017 –2–

establishing his claim before the lower Court but surprisingly instead of

availing the opportunity bestowed upon the appellant-husband, he has failed

to pay even a single penny to the respondent-wife, which act is not only

violative of the objective of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 but

is clearly an indication of intention to harass the respondent-wife in

contravention to the statutory obligation to maintain the respondent-wife.

Counsel for the appellant-husband has been given final

opportunity to comply with the order dated 19.12.2017 but counsel for the

appellant-husband has submitted that he has explained all the pros and cons

to the appellant-husband and made best efforts to persuade him to comply

with the orders passed by this Court and avail an opportunity of hearing by

depositing part of the amount due i.e. sum of ` 1 lac, but the appellant-

husband has not responded.

We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case.

Despite having been fairly advised of the legal consequences by his counsel,

the appellant-husband has not paid any amount. The appeal is dismissed for

non-compliance of the order of payment of maintenance pendente lite.

( M.M.S. Bedi )
Judge

20.2.2018 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill)
pankaj Judge

Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No

Whether Reportable Yes / No

2 of 2
04-03-2018 17:25:47 :::