CM-11940-CII-2017 in/and FAO-M-144-2017 –1–
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Date of Decision:- 20.2.2018
Amit … Appellant
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 )
20.2.2018 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill)
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
2 of 2
04-03-2018 17:25:47 :::