The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to contest a divorce petition and file a written statement can lead to the grant of a decree of divorce. Additionally, the court clarified that an application under Section 24 for interim maintenance can survive beyond the dismissal of the main proceeding for grant of divorce, in respect of the period till the dismissal of the said petition.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The Petitioner Mr. Apurva Anand was married to Ms. Chanchal Niranjan on 11th July, 2008. The Petitioner filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter, Act ), seeking divorce from his wife on 4th October 2016. Vide judgment dated 6th August, 2020, the Family Court, Patiala House Courts, Central District granted a decree of divorce to dissolve the marriage solemnised in the following terms:

"28. In the present proceedings, the conduct of the respondent has been to delay the matter as also she has not sincerely contested the case. Since the defense of the respondent was struck off, she could cross examine the petitioner only on legal issues. It is not permissible to the respondent to cross-examine the respondent on the basis of her pleas taken in written statement as also the filing of written statement was permitted subject to the payment of costs which was not complied with. In these circumstances, the pleas taken by the respondent in her defence cannot be considered or appreciated.

29. The petitioner has been able to establish his case by way of oral and documentary evidence. The respondent has not been able to demolish the case of the petitioner by way of cross-examination or by way of leading her own evidence. I, therefore conclude that petitioner has been able to prove and make out a case for grant of divorce.

30. On the basis of above observations, I grant the relief in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the marriage between the petitioner Apurva Anand and respondent Chanchal Niranjan is hereby dissolved U/s 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955."

3. However, on the same very date, notice has been issued in the application under Section 24 of the Act, vide a separate order, and the Family Court has called for detailed affidavits to be filed as to the expenditure, assets and liabilities of both the Petitioner and Respondent. It is this order passed in the said application under Section 24 of the Act which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

4. Dr. Hingorani, ld. counsel for the Petitioner, submits that in view of the fact that the Respondent has abandoned her defence in the petition for divorce, application under Section 24 of the Act would not survive. Reliance is placed upon the judgment in the divorce petition dated 6th August 2020, wherein the conduct of the Respondent has been set out in detail. Dr. Hingorani, ld. counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the ld. Single Judge of this Court in Rita Mago v. V.P. Mago, 1981 20 DLT 103.

5. In the present case, vide order dated 18th September, 2020, further proceedings in the Section 24 application were stayed by this Court. On the said date, Respondent was duly represented by her counsel. However, no counter affidavit has been filed in this petition. Even today, there is no appearance on behalf of the Respondent.

6. In the judgment granting the decree of divorce dated 6th August, 2020, the Family Court has recorded as under:

"11. Notice of the petition was duly served upon the respondent before the court of metropolitan magistrate where the proceedings under Domestic Violence Act were pending, but the respondent did not promptly appear before this court. The court fixed the case for filing written statement but no written statement was filed, resultantly on 06.06.2017, the respondent was proceeded against exparte and matter was listed for exparte evidence. However, on the next date i.e. 25.09.2017, counsel for respondent Sh. Rakesh Kumar appeared and sought setting aside of the exparte order, without moving any application. The matter was again listed for exparte evidence as per the convenience of the petitioner who was to come from Australia. On 22.11.2017, an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was moved on behalf of respondent, which was allowed subject to the cost of Rs.15,000/and respondent was given last opportu