Back
2010 Supreme(P&H) 1735
2011(6) R.C.R.(Criminal) 2648
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Rajesh Bindal, J.
Hari Singh - Appellant
vs
Bholi - Respondent
FAO No. M-46 of 2008 (O&M)
Decided On : 20.5.2010
Important Points
Subject
Family Law - Divorce and Maintenance
Act Referred
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT : S.24, S.13, S.20(2)
Headnote
Hindu Marriage Act - Divorce - Section 13 - 24 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in relation to the petition for divorce filed by the appellant-husband. Additionally, the court referred to Section 24 of the Act in the context of an application for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. The judgment highlighted the consequences of non-payment of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses, as well as the impact on the husband's defense and the final decision of the court.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty by the respondent-wife. The respondent denied the allegations, attributing the petition to false claims regarding dowry demands. The trial court dismissed the petition, leading to the husband's appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the husband failed to comply with the order for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses, leading to the striking off of his defense. The court cited previous judgments to support the dismissal of the husband's appeal due to non-compliance with maintenance orders.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the allegations of cruelty, non-compliance with maintenance orders, and the impact of such non-compliance on the husband's defense and the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the husband's failure to pay maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses, leading to the striking off of his defense and the dismissal of his appeal.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the husband's appeal due to his non-compliance with the maintenance orders.
Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mrs. G. K. Mann, Advocate, for the respondent.
Rajesh Bindal J. - Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment of the learned court below whereby petition filed by the appellant-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”) for divorce, was dismissed
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the marriage of the parties was solemnised as per Sikh rites in October 2003 at Village Talwandi Rai Dadu, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar. After the marriage, the parties resided at their matrimonial home. The marriage was consummated and one male child was born out of the wedlock, who is presently residing with the mother. It was alleged that after some time of the marriage, the respondent started treating the appellant with cruelty. She always used to abuse him and his family members. She refused to prepare the meals. She insulted the appellant many times in the presence of his relations and friends and used to throw utensils on the face of the appellant. It was also alleged by the appellant that she threatened to commit suicide and involve the appellant and his family members in a false case. On 12.5.2005, the respondent wife left the matrimonial home and also took away minor child and gold ornaments and valuable clothes, etc. Thereafter, she never returned to her matrimonial home, which resulted into filing of petition seeking divorce on the aforesaid grounds.
3. The respondent filed reply to the petition denying all the allegations levelled against her and stated that as her parents could not fulfill his dowry demands, he has filed this petition by concocting a false story.
4. The learned court below after considering the evidence on record, dismissed the petition filed by the appellant-husband for divorce vide judgment dated 14.12.2007. Aggrieved against the judgment of the learned court below, the husband has filed appeal before this court.
5. During the pendency of the appeal, the wife filed Civil Misc. No. 9030/CII of 2008 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 25.2.2009, granting Rs. 1,000/-per month as maintenance pendente lite and Rs. 5,500/-as litigation expenses.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that more than one year has elapsed but the appellant has not paid the maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses as per order dated 25.2.2009. 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.
7. While not disputing the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid authorities, learned counsel for the appellant-husband submitted that she had never treated him as her husband. The fact regarding non-payment of arrears of maintenance pendente lite was admitted by him. He submitted that he had written a letter to his client on 1.2.2010 and also contracted on phone and advised him for clearance of the aforesaid dues but he has failed to do so. It was submitted by him that the evidence led by the appellant before the trial court be considered and instead of striking off defence of the respondent, the appeal be heard on merits.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
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 entitled to the relief prayed for in the appeal. The facts in the case in hand are also similar.
10. In Rani's case (supra), this court allowed appeal filed by wife against decree of divorce after the defence of the husband was struck o
