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 13.2.2000 at Ludhiana. After the marriage, the parties resided in their matrimonial home. Out of their wedlock one male child was born on 13.12.2000, who is living with the appellant wife. Due to temperamental differences, the parties could not pull on together. The petition filed by the husband for dissolution of marriage was contested by the wife by filing reply denying all the allegations levelled by him.

3. 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 15.2.2008. Aggrieved against the judgment of the learned court below, the wife has filed appeal before this court.

4. Along with the appeal, the wife filed Civil Misc. No. M-28 of 2008 under Section 24 of the Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite. Upon notice, the application was contested by the husband. The said application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 3.7.2009 and the wife was granted 10,000/-per month as maintenance pendente lite from the date of application and 11,000/- as litigation expenses.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent is living abroad and leading a luxurious life. The wife has no source of livelihood. She has to maintain her son also. But the respondent has not paid maintenance pendente lite as per order dated 3.7.2009.

6. On 28.1.2011, this court on the request of counsel for the respondent granted last opportunity for clearance of the arrears of maintenance and the case was adjourned to 22.2.2011. On the adjourned date no maintenance was paid and the case was adjourned for today on the request of counsel for the respondent, by passing the following order:-

“This court vide order dated 3.7.2009 had fixed maintenance of 10,000/-per month payable to the applicant wife from the date of application i.e. 11.3.2008. In addition, a sum of 11,000/-was also awarded as litigation expenses. The first payment of 2,50,000/-was made by the non-applicant on 26.3.2010 after the wife filed application seeking payment of arrears of maintenance. On account of delay, cost of 10,000/-was also imposed on 22.2.2010. Even after March 2010, no payment was made by the non-applicant husband.

The present application has been filed by the wife seeking clearance of arrears of maintenance in which notice was issued on 13.9.2010. Thereafter, the same was adjourned on the request of counsel for the non-applicant, thrice. However, payment has not been made till date.

Learned counsel for the non-applicant/husband submitted that now she has not been able to contact the attorney of the non-applicant, who is living abroad. She submitted that arrears of maintenance shall be cleared within one week.

As a matter of indulgence one week adjournment is granted to clear the arrears of maintenance. However, the same shall be subject to payment of 25,000/-as costs. Adjourned to 1.3.2011.”

7. Today again learned counsel for the respondent submitted that neither the husband nor his attorney is responding to clear the arrears of maintenance.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the respondent is not paying any maintenance and disobeying the order of this court, his defence be struck off on account of non-payment of amount of maintenance pendente lite and appeal filed by the wife 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.

9. While not disputing the proposition of law laid