FAO-317-2018 (OM) –1–
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-317-2018 (OM)
Date of Decision:- 19.1.2018
Sarwan … Appellant
Versus
Smt. Savita … Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for the appellant.
*****
M.M.S. BEDI, J.
This is husband’s appeal against order dated 7.12.2017
dismissing his petition for decree of divorce on the ground of having not
paid the entire arrears of maintenance pendente lite as per the order passed
by the Court on 25.4.2016.
Perusal of the impugned order indicates that no one had put in
appearance on behalf of the appellant on 7.12.2017 as such the petition has
also been dismissed in default.
We have carefully considered the circumstances of the present
case and are of the opinion that an order passed by a Court dismissing a case
for non appearance under Order 9 Rule 8 of CPC can be questioned by
filing an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC. If any such application is
rejected, the order is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(c) of CPC.
This appeal is liable to be disposed of in limine being not
maintainable on account of the statutory alternative remedies available to
him.
1 of 2
26-01-2018 07:54:49 :::
FAO-317-2018 (OM) –2–
The counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is
ready to clear all arrears of maintenance as per the order dated 25.4.2016.
The appeal is disposed of in limine relegating the appellant to
avail the alternative remedy of filing an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of
CPC within a period of 15 days. It is ordered that in case the application is
supported by a bank draft of entire arrears of maintenance pendente lite as
per the order dated 25.4.2016, the application shall be considered and
decided in accordance with law expeditiously.
( M.M.S. Bedi )
Judge
19.1.2018 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill)
pankaj Judge
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
2 of 2
26-01-2018 07:54:49 :::