Back
2008 Supreme(Chh) 114
2008(3) C.G.L.J. 13
HIGH COURT OF CHHATIISGARH, BILASPUR
Hon'ble Shri D. R. Deshmukh, J.
SMT. SHASHIKALA PANDEY - Appellant
Vs.
RAMESH PRASAD PANDEY - Respondent
First Appeal No. 74 of 1989,
Decided on 28-4-2008.
Shr; B.P. Gupta. Advocate, for the Appellant.
None appears for the Respondent.
Deliberate non-compliance with court orders for maintenance and expenses can lead to the striking off of the defense and the allowance of the appeal.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 13(1)(iii) - Bani, W/o Parkash Singh Vs. Parkash Singh - Vanmala Vs. Maroti Sambhaji Hatkar
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed for divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, alleging that the appellant suffered from a mental disorder. The District Judge granted the divorce, and the appellant appealed, seeking maintenance and expenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent deliberately flouted the court's order to pay maintenance and expenses to the appellant, leading to the striking off of the respondent's defense and the allowance of the appeal, setting aside the divorce decree.
Issues: Non-compliance with court orders for maintenance and expenses, defense striking off, allowance of the appeal, setting aside the divorce decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Bani, W/o Parkash Singh Vs. Parkash Singh and Vanmala Vs. Maroti Sambhaji Hatkar to support the decision to strike off the respondent's defense and allow the appeal due to deliberate non-compliance with court orders.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the divorce decree was set aside.
1. Heard.
2. On 14.02.2008, Shri B.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on Bani, W/o Parkash Singh Vs. Parkash Singht, submitted that the order dated 21.07.2006 granting monthly maintenance and expenses of the appeal to the appellant was flouted by the respondent/Ramesh Prasad Pandey, and therefore, prayed that the defence of the respondent should be struck off and the appeal should be allowed while setting aside the impugned judgment and decree for divorce dated 2.5.1989 passed by the District Judge, Ambikapur.
3. Brief facts are that the respondent/Ramesh Prasad Pandey instituted a Civil Suit No. 12-A of 1984 under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the District Judge, Ambikapur for a decree of divorce against the appellant-wife herein on the ground that the appellant herein was suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such extent that he could not reasonably be expected to live with her. The appellant/defendant resisted the suit denying the allegations in toto. After recording evidence of the parties, the District Judge vide Judgment dated 2.5.1989 held that the respondent/applicant had, by leading behavioral evidence, proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant/non-applicant suffered from disease of incurable unsound mind and mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the respondent/applicant could not reasonably be expected to live with the appellant-wife/non-applicant.
4. Being aggrieved, the non-applicant/wife preferred this appeal (First Appeal No. 74/1989) on 15.06.1989. The respondent-husband Ramesh Prasad Pandey had notice of this appeal and was represented by counsel.
5. An application (M.C.P.No.1122/2006) was filed by the appellant for grant of interim alimony and expenses of the appeal which was resisted by the respondent/Ramesh Prasad Pandey. This Court, after hearing arguments, allowed the said M.C.P. No. 1122/2006 and ordered that the respondent/Ramesh Prasad Pandey shall pay to the appellant a sum of Rs1000/- as the amount of expenses of the appeal and in addition to the said amount, he shall also pay a monthly maintenance in the sum of Rs.2000/ - per month to her. It was further ordered that the amount of expenses of proceedings shall be paid within a period of one month from the date of order and amount of monthly maintenance shall also be paid from the month of July 2006 onwards.
6. Despite the fact that the respondent was represented by counsel on 21.07.2006. a fixed date S.P.C. at court expense was also sent by registered post to the respondent informing that the counsel engaged by him had not appeared before this Court on 14.02.2008, and therefore, he was required to make necessary arrangements for his representation before this Court on 7.4.2008, failing which, the abovementioned prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant may be considered on its merit. This fixed date S.P.C. returned with endorsement that the addressee has left the house and hence returned to the sender.
7. Shri B.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has made a statement today before this Court that the respondent-Ramesh Prasad Pandey has not paid even a penny to the appellant [who was living in a state of penury ever since the decree for divorce was passed] in compliance to the order dated 21.07.2006 passed by this Court. Placing reliance upon Bani, W/o Parkash Singh Vs. Parkash Singh' (supra) as also on Vanmala Vs. Maroti Sambhaji Hatkar, learned counsel for the appellant prayed that for deliberate non-compliance of the order dated 21.07.2006 passed by this Court, the defence of the respondent in the petition under Section 13(l)(iii) of the Act should not only be struck off but also the first appeal should be allowed while setting the impugned judgment and decree of divorce passed by the learned District Judge, Ambikapur in Civil Suit No. 12-A of 1984.
8. Having heard learn
