Non-payment of maintenance disentitles a party to relief, and a litigant who sleeps over his right is not entitled to any relief even on the ground of equity.

JUDGMENT

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J. - Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby petition filed by the re spondent-wife has been allowed and the marriage has been dissolved on the ground of cruelty.

2. The factum of marriage between the parties and the birth of two male children, namely, Pavneet Singh and Bhupinder Singh is undisputed. The respondent-wife filed the petition for divorce on the ground that barely after six months of the marriage, the appellant-husband and his family members, started harassing and torturing her for bringing insufficient dowry; that her husband is a drunkard and besides spending his entire salary of Rs. 40,000/- being earned by him as a Manager in a Hotel at Dalhousie, he would compel the re spondent-wife to bring more money from her parents, in order to satisfy his alcoholic requirements; that on 14.06.2015, she, before having been turned out of the matrimonial home, had been given severe beatings, as a result of which she along with her minor children, left her matrimonial home for her parental home and that the efforts for reconciliation yielded no result. It was further alleged that when the respondent-wife had filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance, the appellant-husband with a view to avoid his liability of maintenance, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act').

3. Upon notice, the appellant-husband appeared and filed his written statement. While denying the allegations of cruelty, it was averred that the respondent-wife had left the matrimonial home on her own as her demand of getting the shops and house in her name was not acceded to by the appellant-husband.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and they led their respective evidence.

5. After taking into consideration the evidence on record and further considering the rival contentions of the parties, the learned trial Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent-wife holding therein that the cruelty stood duly proved by the evidence led by her. It was held that the appellant-husband failed to pay the interim maintenance to the respondent-wife, which was granted to her vide order dated 29.08.2018. Earlier, an ex-parte decree was granted on 25.10.2016 but subsequently on an application filed by the appellant-husband, vide order dated 11.09.2017, said ex-parte decree was set aside and the petition was restored to its original number. Thereafter, vide order dated 29.08.2018, on an application filed under Section 24 of the Act, the appellant-husband was directed to pay to the respondent-wife an amount of Rs.3500/- per month as maintenance pendent-lite. However, owing to non-payment of such amount of maintenance including the arrears of Rs.87,500/-, the defence of the appellant-husband was struck off vide order dated 23.10.2018. Thus, taking into consideration that it was a case of no evidence on behalf of the appellant-husband the learned trial Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent-wife by granting a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant but do not find any merit in the present appeal.

7. Undeniably, after the defence of the appellant-husband was struck off for non-payment of the maintenance amount including the arrears, he lost his right as also the opportunity to lead the evidence. No effort(s) was made by the appellant-husband either to pay the maintenance amount and get the order of striking off his defence set aside/modified or challenged the said order by any of an appeal or revision. Thus, it is apparent that the appellant-husband was neither interested in making the payment of maintenance pendent-lite nor was taking the divorce proceedings seriously. Even before this Court no attempt much less a bona-fide attempt has been made by the appellant to clear and/or pay the mai