Payment of interim alimony and litigation expenses by the husband is a sine qua non of justice.

Ratnam, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition, at the instance of the husband, is directed against the order of the Court below in I.A. No. 176 of 1986 in H.M.O.P. No. 30/1985, Sub-Court, Tenkasi, striking out the defence of the petitioner, for non-compliance with an order dated 23-9-1986 passed in I.A. No. 19 of 1986 for payment of interim alimony and litigation expenses to the respondent. On 1-7-1985, the respondent herein filed H.M.O.P. No. 30 of 1985, Sub-Court, Tenkasi, praying for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. Stating that she had no independent income for her support and maintenance and also to meet the expenses of the proceedings, she filed I.A. No. 19 of 1986 praying that the petitioner should be directed to pay interim alimony of Rs. 300/- p.m. and Rs. 500/- towards litigation expenses. That application was resisted by the petitioner on certain grounds, which need not be noticed in extenso at this stage. Suffice it to say that on 23-9-1986, the Sub-Court, Tenkasi, passed an order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- p.m. as interim alimony from the date of main application and a sum of Rs. 300/- towards the litigation expenses. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner preferred C.R.P. No. 975 of 1987 and while disposing of that C.R.P., Sathiadev, J. stated : 'It is obligatory on the part of the petitioner herein to continue to pay alimony at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. If it results in excess payment, it can be adjusted later. As regards litigation expenses, there is no serious dispute on this aspect.' It is thus seen that the direction of the Court below to pay interim alimony at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month and the litigation expenses of Rs. 300/- had been maintained and upheld. Even so, the matter was remitted, a purposeless and futile exercise and the remit order is not only unintelligible, but ex facie bears the stamp of total absence of clearity and lack of appreciation of the circumstances warranting or justifying a remand. It would be desirable to bear in mind that even this Court should not readily pass judicial orders remitting matters for the mere asking as it were, keeping matrimonial matters unnecessarily pending for a long time, causing great inconvenience to the weaker of the spouses, and serving absolutely no purpose. The respondent herein filed I.A. No. 176 of 1986 under Section 151, C.P.C., bringing it to the notice of the Court that the petitioner had not complied with the order dated 23-9-1986, and that such non-compliance was deliberate and contumacious, deserving the striking off of the defence of the petitioner herein in H.M.O.P. 30/85. That application was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the remedy of the respondent herein, if any, was to execute the order in I.A. No. 19/86 and not to seek the striking off of the defence of the petitioner. It is significant that it was not the case of the petitioner that payments had been made by him pursuant to the order in I.A. No. 19 of 1986 or that the disobedience of the order, was not deliberate or contumacious. The Court below found that the petitioner had not deposited any amount either pursuant to the order in I.A. No. 19/86 or C.R.P. 975/87, and in that view, struck off the defence of the petitioner and allowed the application filed by the respondent herein praying for the relief of conjugal lights in H.M.O.P. No. 30/85. It is the correctness of this that is questioned in this Civil Revision Petition.

2. The principal question that arises for consideration is, whether the court below was right in striking off the defence for non-compliance with the order in I.A. No. 19 of 1986 directing the petitioner herein to pay interim alimony and also litigation expenses, to the respondent herein. Earlier, it has been noticed that it is not the case of the petitioner that any payment was made and it has therefore, to be taken that the Court below was right in holding that no payment at all bad been made by the peti