The court has inherent powers under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to strike out the defense of a party who deliberately and contumaciously fails to comply with an order for interim alimony and costs in a matrimonial dispute.

JUDGEMENT

T. U. Mehta, Acts. C.J. :- This appeal is preferred by the appellant-husband against the order passed by the District Judge, Mandi granting an ex parte decree of judicial separation in favour of the first respondent Smt. Khimi who claims to be the wife of the appellant.

2. Facts of the case show that the first respondent Smt. Khimi filed a petition for judicial separation under the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that her appellant husband has a second wife, who is in this case the respondent No. 2, and is treating her cruelly. It is found that during the pendency of the proceedings the first respondent made an application for interim alimony and costs under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. On that application the court passed an order on 8th August, 1972 for payment of monthly allowance and cost of the petition amounting to Rs. 200. Proceedings taken before the trial court show that the appellant-husband thereafter failed in paying the amount of cost as ordered by the Court. Ultimately, on 27th Feb., 1973 the appellant husband made the following statement before the court :

"I have not been able to bring the money today, which I have promised to pay on the last date of hearing. Now I promise that I shall pay Rs. 200 on 2-3-1973 to the petitioner and on my so paying the amount, the petitioner should summon her evidence for 17-3-1973 and the rest of the amount may be recovered from me by the petitioner by taking out execution proceedings." On this statement the first respondent Smt. Khimi made the following statement : "I have heard the statement of the respondent and accept his statement and undertake to produce all my evidence on 17-3-1973 in case the respondent pays me Rs. 200 on 2-3-1973, as undertaken by him." The parties having made the above quoted statements, the court passed the following order on the same date: "In view of the above statements of the parties, the case is now fixed for 17-3-1973 for the evidence of the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to file a list of witnesses, process fee and diet money for summoning her witnesses, in case the respondent pays her Rs. 200 on 2-3-1973, as expenses of proceedings."

3. The matter was thereafter taken up on 17-3-1973 when the appellant-husband appeared before the court and made the following statement: "I had undertaken to pay Rs. 200 to the petitioner on or before 2-3-1973, which I have not paid so far, nor I am prepared to pay the same." The appellant husband thus having refused to carry out the promise of the payment of the cost of Rs. 200, the court passed the order on the same date i.e. 17-3-1973, striking out his defence, and ordering the case to proceed ex parte against the appellant-husband. Thereafter, the court recorded evidence ex parte and then passed the decree for judicial separation as requested by the respondent No. 1.

4. In this appeal the grievance which is made by the appellant-husband is that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to proceed ex parte against him, and therefore, the eventual decree which is passed against him is liable to be set aside. Since this court found that the question involved is of some importance, the matter was referred to a Division Bench. This is how this matter has coma before us.

5. The simple question which arises to be determined is whether in the set of circumstances which are found in this case it was open to the court to pass an order striking out the defence of the appellant and whether this order is conducive to the interest of justice.

6. Shri Indar Singh who appeared on behalf of the appellant contended that though under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act the Court has powers to pass an interim order to pay alimony and expenses of the proceedings, there is nothing in the Act which would enable the court to pass an order striking out the defence, in case the spouse ordered to pay the expenses and maintenance pendente lite has defaulted in doing so. In this connection he has also drawn our attention to S. 28