The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of expeditious disposal of maintenance cases and the need for a just assessment of the husband's income and resources to determine a fair compensation for the wife.

JUDGMENT

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. - The petitioner Jaspreet Singh (husband) seeks setting aside of order dated 25.07.2019 (Annexure P-4), passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Courts, Ludhiana, whereby his application seeking issuance of a direction to respondent(wife) to comply with the order dated 23.10.2018 has been dismissed.

2. The relevant facts may, briefly, be stated chronologically as follows: 20.8.2015 : An application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by respondent(wife) seeking maintenance from petitioner(husband).

23.10.2018 : During the pendency of the aforesaid application, the petitioner Jaspreet Singh moved an application seeking issuance of a direction to be issued to respondent-wife for admission or denial of certain facts as regards period of her employment since she had taken a different stand in her transfer application, filed in the High Court. The trial Court vide order dated 23.10.2018, issued a direction to respondent wife to clarify the facts pertaining to the period when she had been working and as to when she had left the job and for the said purpose she was directed to appear before the Court and to get her statement recorded to the said effect or to file an affidavit in respect of the same.

25.7.2019 : Since the respondent wife neither filed any affidavit nor furnished the requisite information as regards period of her employment as had been specifically directed vide order dated 23.10.2018, the petitioner moved an application before trial Court seeking issuance of a direction to the respondent either to make a statement in this regard or to furnish an affidavit for compliance of order dated

23.10.2018. However the trial Court, vide impugned order dated 25.07.2019, dismissed the said application.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order as well as order dated 23.10.2018. The relevant extract from order dated 23/10/2018 wherein certain directions were issued to respondent wife reads as follows:

"Consequently, in the interest of justice, for the purpose of proper adjudication of the case, this Court finds it necessary to direct the respondent to clarify the facts pertaining to the same by specifying the dates as to when she was working, when she left the job, her date of filing of transfer application and the present petition. For the said purpose petitioner is directed to appear before the Court and get her statement recorded to that effect or to file an affidavit in lieu of the same (alternatively). The application is accordingly, disposed of."

4. Since the aforesaid order was not complied with by the respondent wife, the petitioner moved an application before the trial Court seeking issuance of a directions to respondent wife to comply with order dated 23.10.2018. However, the said application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.07.2019, the operative portion of which reads as follows:

"I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. Witness is present to face cross-examination. Once witness is present and is ready to face crossexamination, she cannot be directed to file fresh affidavit at the instance of the opposite party. The applicant/respondent is directed to put the relevant document for the purpose in the cross-examination of witness for confrontation. The application is accordingly dismissed."

5. Having perused the impugned order dated 25.07.2019, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court fell in error in dismissing the application inasmuch as the facts do not show that directions issued on 23.10.2018 had been complied with as neither any affidavit had been filed nor any specific statement of the respondent-wife in this regard had been recorded. The fact that the respondent wife was present for the purpose of her cross-examination in respect of her examination-in-chief recorded earlier cannot be said to be