210
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 6370 of 2015 (OM)
Date of Decision: 05.12.2018
AZAD SINGH …… Appellant
V/s.
POOJA ….Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL.
Present: Mr. Gurpreet Jaiya, Advocate
for the appellant.
Ms. Bindu Goel, Advocate,
for the respondent.
****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that vide order
dated 11.12.2017, her application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was allowed and
appellant was ordered to pay maintenance pendente lite @ `7,000/- per
month with effect from the date of the application i.e June, 2017 and the
litigation expenses of `40,000/-. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for
19.03.2018 for payment of the entire arrears of maintenance pendente lite. On
the date fixed, an adjournment was sought by the learned counsel for the
appellant to clear the arrears of maintenance and the matter was adjourned to
10.07.2018 subject to payment of `2,000/- as cost. Thereafter, the case was
listed for 10.07.2018 and on that date also arrears of maintenance was not
paid and the following order was passed: –
“For payment of the arrears of maintenance, adjourned to
23.07.2018.
In case, the entire arrears are not cleared on the said date, the
said inaction may entail adverse legal consequences against the
husband-appellant.”
1 of 2
06-01-2019 20:49:29 :::
FAO No. 6370 of 2015 (OM) Page 2 of 2Thereafter, on 23.07.2018, the case was adjourned for today.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he has no
instructions at all in regard to the payment of arrears of maintenance
pendente lite, therefore, learned counsel for the respondent has prayed that
the defence of the appellant may be struck off.
After taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, the defence of the appellant is hereby struck off. In such a
situation, where the divorce petition was filed by the husband under Section
13 (1) (i) of the Act which was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment
and decreed dated 20.08.2015 and the present appeal has been preferred by
the husband, in the event of striking of the defence of the appellant-husband,
the present appeal would also meet with the same fate of dismissal.
Ordered accordingly.
It is needless to mention that still the respondent-wife may avail
the remedy, if available, for the purpose of recovery of amount of
maintenance.
[ RAKESH KUMAR JAIN]
JUDGE
December 5, 2018 [ ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL]
Ess Kay JUDGE
Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes / No
Whether Reportable : Yes / No
2 of 2
06-01-2019 20:49:29 :::
