Rajesh Bindal J.:- Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment of the learned court below whereby petition filed by the respondent-wife 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 Sikh rites on 5.10.2005 at Kotkapura. After the marriage, the parties resided at their matrimonial home. The marriage was consummated but no child was born out of the wedlock. It was alleged that after some time of the marriage, the husband started treating the wife with cruelty. On 15.4.2006, she was turned out of the matrimonial home. Since then she is living with her parents. Number of efforts were made by the parents of the respondent wife for rehabilitation but all in vain which resulted into filing of petition seeking divorce.

3. The respondent filed reply to the petition denying all the allegations levelled against him and stated that the respondent wife is living separate from him without any reasonable cause and excuse. It was also averred that he is still ready to take her back but she is not ready to join his company. The petition for dissolution of marriage was filed by concocting a false story. However, his defence was struck off on 19.3.2008 as he failed to pay maintenance pendente lite to the respondent wife awarded to her vide order dated 27.2.2008.

4. The learned court below after considering the evidence led by the respondent-wife on record, allowed the petition filed by the respondent-wife for dissolution of marriage vide judgment and decree dated 5.12.2008. Aggrieved against the judgment of the learned court below, the husband has filed appeal before this court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband submitted that the story put forth by the respondent wife is a concocted one. She had never treated him as her husband. The fact regarding non-payment of arrears of maintenance pendente lite was admitted by him. However, he submitted that the financial position of the appellant is not good, therefore, he even now is not in a position to pay the maintenance amount. It was also submitted that allegations against the appellant are false and baseless, however, as the defence was struck off, he could not prove his case. It was submitted by him that the appellant be granted opportunity to lead evidence and instead of striking off his defence, the appeal be heard on merits.

6. During the pendency of the appeal, the wife filed Civil Misc. No. M- 104 of 2009 under Section 24 of the Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite, as also the litigation expenses. Upon notice, the application was contested by the husband. The said application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 17.2.2010, granting ‘ 3,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that more than six months has elapsed but the appellant has not paid the maintenance pendente as per order dated 17.2.2010. She has prayed for striking off defence of the appellant on account of non-payment of amount of maintenance pendente lite and dismissal of appeal in her favour. 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.

8. While not disputing the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid authorities, learned counsel for the appellant-husband admitted the fact regarding non-payment of arrears of maintenance pendente lite. He, however, submitted that he had written two letters to his client for clearance of the arrears of maintenance but he has not responded back.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

10. 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, th