Mr. Rajesh Bindal, J.: - Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment of the learned court below whereby petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”) for divorce, was allowed.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the marriage of the parties was solemnised as per Hindu rites on 16.3.1994 at Village Jatuwas, Tehsil and District Mahendergarh. After the marriage, the parties resided at their matrimonial home. Out of their wedlock one female child was born. Appellant’s sister Savitri was also married in the same family with Pawan, brother of the respondent-husband. It was alleged by the respondent in his petition for divorce before the court below that after some time of the marriage, the appellant started misbehaving with him and his family members. She left the matrimonial at her own. It was also alleged by the respondent that his brother Pawan died as a result of consumption of excessive liquor in the marriage of his cousin but the appellant wife and his sister Savitri lodged a false case against the respondent, his sister and parents after a period of six months. The respondent tried to bring her to the matrimonial home but all in vain. Thereafter, he filed petition seeking divorce.

3. The wife filed reply to the petition denying all the allegations levelled by the respondent. It was averred that she has not left the matrimonial home rather she was turned out in March 2000. It was alleged that the petition has been filed by concocting a false story.

4. The learned court below after considering the evidence on record, allowed the petition filed by the husband and granted a decree of divorce vide judgment dated 15.6.2006. Aggrieved against the judgment of the learned court below, the wife has filed appeal before this court.

5. Along with the appeal, the wife filed Civil Misc. No. M-118 of 2006 under Section 24 of the Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite. Upon notice, the application was contested by the husband. While admitting the appeal, the said application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 4.12.2007 and the wife was granted Rs.1,500/- per month as maintenance pendente lite from the date of application.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submitted that a period of more than three years has elapsed but the respondent has not paid even a single penny on account of maintenance pendente lite as per order dated 4.12.2007. She has filed Civil Misc. No. 3851/CII of 2010 with a prayer that defence of the respondent be struck off on account of non-payment of amount of maintenance pendente lite and appeal filed by her may be allowed. In support thereof, reliance was placed on Paramjit Kaur vs Kashmir Singh 1993 (3) R. R. R. 538, Balwinder Kaur vs Kashmir Singh 1993 (3) R. R. R. 539, Rani vs Parkash Singh 1996 (2) P. L. R. 219, and Ramesh vs Rajpati 2003 (3) P. L. R. 761.

7. While not disputing the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid authorities, learned counsel for the husband submitted that she had never treated the respondent as her husband. The fact regarding non-payment of arrears of maintenance pendente lite was admitted by him. It was submitted that the respondent is not in a position to pay any maintenance as he is not doing anything. On an execution application filed by the wife for recovery of maintenance amount, as fixed in proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P. C., warrant of attachment has been issued. It was submitted that the evidence led by the respondent before the trial court be considered and instead of striking off his defence, the appeal be heard on merits as the arrears can be recovered from the sale of attached property.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record.

9. In Balwinder Kaur’s case (supra), this court held that once the defence of the husband is struck off on account of non-payment of litigation expenses and maintenance pendente lite, the wife is