JUDGMENT 1. - This is a wife's appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (No. XXV of 1955) (which will, hereinafter for the sake of brevity be referred to as ''the Act") against the judgment and decree dated October 26, 1979, passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2 Hanumangarh in a petition under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of coujugal rights. 2. The husband-respondent filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights on November 28, 1978 on the ground that the wife-appellant has without reasonable excuse withdrawn from his society. The petition was contested by the wife on various grounds. Issues were framed and the evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, by the judgment dated October 26, 1979, granted the decree in favour of the husband for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife was not satisfied with the decree and she filed the appeal as aforesaid. 3. During the pendency of the appeal, the wife appellant filed an application under section 24 of the Act. The Court after perusing the application and hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, passed the following order on October 8, 1980: "In circumstance of the case and looking to the financial position of the respondent, I direct that the appellant shall be paid a sum of Rs. 700 by the respondent by way of expenses for this appeal and a sum of Rs. 150 per month for her maintenance during the pendency of this appeal from the date of this application." It appears that on December 3, 1980, an application was moved on behalf of the appellant praying therein that the petition under section 9 of the Act filed by the respondent may be dismissed and he (respondent) may be restrained from taking any defence before this Court, as he has not paid amount of maintenance and litigation expenses. 4. As nobody was present on December 5, 1980, it was inter-alia, ordered that the office will get the certified copy of the order dated October 8, 1980 prepared and send it to the respondent alone with the notice informing him that he has to comply with the order dated October 8, 1980, copy of which is sent to him within a month from the date of the service of the notice. Summons and notice dated July 18, 1983, were served on the respondent on August 27, 1983, for the hearing of September 3, 1983. The payment was not made within one month as ordered on December 5, 1983. The appeal was listed on October 11, 1983, In Court. It was stated by the learned counsel for the appellant on that day that compliance of the order dated December 5, 1980, has not been made by the respondent and no amount of maintenance and legal expenses have been paid till then. Mr. B. N. Kalla, learned counsel for the respondent, sought one month's time to seek instructions. The court allowed one month's time. The appeal has been taken up for hearing today. 5. Mr. B.R. Arora, learned counsel for the appellant, pressed upon me that as the amount of maintenance and legal expenses have not been paid so far as ordered on October 8, 1980 and also within one month from December 5, 1980, as directed the appeal should be allowed and the petition for restitution of conjugal rights should be dismissed. 6. Mr. B.N. Kalla, learned counsel for the respondent stated that even a day or two after December 11, 1983 he has written a letter to the respondent asking him to comply with the order of the Court regarding payment of the amount of maintenance and legal expenses to the appellant and that he has neither received any reply of that letter nor he has any information that payment of the amount of maintenance and legal expenses have been paid. 7. In there circumstances, there is no good reason to disbelieve the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount of maintenance and legal expenses as ordered by the court have not been paid and there has been non-compliance with the order. 8. Now further question in these circumstances is that what order should be passed? Mr. B R. Arora, learned counsel for the appellant, has cited Jai Shankar v. Chandresh, 1980 W.L.N. (U.C.), 12 , Smt. Banso v. Shri Sarvan, 1978 H.L.R. 251 , and Mst. Balblr Kaur v. Gurdev Singh, 1978 H.L.R. 258 . 9. In Jai Shanker's case (supra), husband was the appellant and wife was the respondent. The court, during the pendency of the appeal, directed the husband to pay to the respondent Rs. 330 as lawyer's fee for opposing the appeal and Rs. Balblr Kaur v. Gurdev Singh, 1978 H.L.R. 258 . 9. In Jai Shanker's case (supra), husband was the appellant and wife was the respondent. The court, during the pendency of the appeal, directed the husband to pay to the respondent Rs. 330 as lawyer's fee for opposing the appeal and Rs. 120 as incidental expenses total Rs. 450 and one month's time was granted to the appellant for making the payment. The order was not complied. The contention was raised that the appellant is not entitled to be heard in support of his appeal, when he was wilfully and deliberately floured the order of the Court directing payment to the respondent. The Division Bench observed as follows:- "Having regard to the circumstances of the case we are inclined to think that no useful purpose will be served by directing stay of hearing of the appeal on the ground of non-compliance with the order of this Court. The intention of the Legislature behind enacting section 24 is clear and it is this that if one of the spouses deserves to be awarded necessary expenses for defending a matrimonial matter the court should make an order in that effect so that the effected spouse may plead its case effectively. We are consequently of opinion that the only just and proper course would he to grant one more opportunity to the appellant in the interest of justice to comply with the order of this court and make it the last opportunity on the pain of dismissal of the appeal in case the order is not complied with. (Emphasis supplied). The Court directed the appellant to deposit or pay to the respondent against her receipt amount as ordered by the Court on November 6, 1979 on or before Tuesday, the 15th April, 1980 failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed. In Jai Shanker's case (supra), the learned Judge did not order for the stay of the proceedings of the appeal, but made a pre-emtory order that in case the order is not complied with, the appeal shall stand dismissed. 10. The fact in Smt. Banso's case (supra) may briefly be noticed. The application of the wife-appellant under section 10 of the Act for judicial separation against the husband-respondent was dismissed. The wife filed an appeal. 10. The fact in Smt. Banso's case (supra) may briefly be noticed. The application of the wife-appellant under section 10 of the Act for judicial separation against the husband-respondent was dismissed. The wife filed an appeal. She moved an application under Section 24 of the Act for grant of litigation expenses and maintenance pendente lite etc. The application was allowed. The order was not complied with. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted before the court that the respondent had not paid any maintenance pendente lite to the appellant. It was stated on behalf of the respondent by his counsel that letters were written, but he has no information as to whether any maintenance allowance has been paid by the respondent to the appellant or not. Relying on Surinder Kumar v. Smt Sarda Rani, (F.A.O. No. 70 M of 1973) decided on August 25, 1975 the learned Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree and the petition tinder section 10 of the Act for judicial separation against the respondent was decreed it. 11. So far as Mst. Balbir Kaur's case (supra) is concerned, it is almost an identical case with the one on hand. In that case, husband respondent filed the petition under section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife-appellant. The petition was allowed and decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed. The wife-appellant filed an appeal challenging the same under Section 28 of the Act. During the pendency of the appeal an application was filed claiming maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. The court allowed the application and ordered for the payment of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses to the appellant. When the appeal was taken up for hearing on behalf of the appellant, it was submitted that the husband-respondent has not so far paid the amount of maintenance and the litigation expenses. Learned counsel for the respondent took time. The appeal was adjourned. When it was taken up for hearing on the next date, the same contention was raised on behalf of the appellant. It was submitted that the appellant has not been paid any amount whatsoever in pursuance of the order of the Court. Learned counsel for the respondent took time. The appeal was adjourned. When it was taken up for hearing on the next date, the same contention was raised on behalf of the appellant. It was submitted that the appellant has not been paid any amount whatsoever in pursuance of the order of the Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, stated that he sent registered letters, but he received no reply whatsoever and, therefore, he is not in a position to accept or rebut the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned Judge opined that there is no reason to disbelieve the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in inspite of the order of the Court, the respondent has not cared to comply with the order and has not paid any thing towards maintenance and litigation expenses. Relying on Surinder Kumar's case (supra) and Smt. Banso's case (supra) the learned Judge allowed the appeal and ordered that the petition under section 9 of the Act filed by the respondent be dismissed with costs. In other words, he accepted the contention raised on behalf of the wife-appellant that the appeal is to be allowed without going into merits. 12. Before the Division Bench in Jaishanker's case (supra), the learned counsel for the appellant cited Malkan Rani v. Krishan Kumar, AIR 1961, Punj 42 , Smt. Anita v. Bindra Chandra AIR 1962 Cal. 83 , Ramchandra Rao v. Kosalya, AIR 1969 Mys. 76 and Anuradha v. Santosh Nath, AIR 1976 Del. 246 in support of the alternative submission that the proceedings in the appeal may be ordered to be stayed till the order is complied with. On behalf of the respondents. Shri Ramswaroop v. Smt Janak, AIR 1973 P and H 40 , and Jai Singh v. Smt. Khimi khiklu, AIR 1978 H.P. 45 were relied on The Division Bench in Jai Singh's case (supra) observed that stay of the proceedings would not prevent the abuse of the Courts process or would not further the ends of justice, because it is such a stay which would he exactly wanted by the husband who resisted the petition for judicial separation. It further observed that both the alternative remedies, namely, remedy of execution and the remedy of starting contempt proceedings would result in frustration of justice and would not enhance the purpose for which Section 24 was enacted. It further observed that both the alternative remedies, namely, remedy of execution and the remedy of starting contempt proceedings would result in frustration of justice and would not enhance the purpose for which Section 24 was enacted. 13. It will be useful to refer Smt. Chitra Lekha v. Ranjit Rai, AIR 1977 Del. 176 wherein while considering section 24 of the Act, the learned Judge observed as under:- "...The object behind the provision of law is to provide financial assistance to the indigent spouse to maintain herself (or himself, as the case may be) during the pendency of the proceedings and also to have sufficient funds to defend or carry on the litigation, so that the spouse does not unduly stiffer in the conduct of the case for want of funds." This decision was noticed in Bhanwarlal v. Smt. Kamla Devi, AIR 1983 Raj. 229 , 1983 Rajasthan Law Reporter 640 and the learned Judge has stated as under:- "...It appears from a bare perusal of the provisions of Section 24 of the Act that the provision has been made in order to provide means to the spouse who has no independent source of income to contest a matrimonial processing. The indigent spouse should be allowed to obtain the requisite maintenance and litigation expenses from the other party, soon after the filing of the application under Section 24 of the Act, in order that the indigent spouse could maintain herself during the pendency of the proceedings, and the also incur the legitimate expenses for contesting the matrimonial dispute." It seems that the view of the Punjab and Haryana High Court is that where the orders are not complied with by the husband in the appeals under the Act, then if he is the appellant, his appeal should be dismissed and if he is the respondent, the appeal should he allowed against him. This appears to be a sound view as it is in conformity with the interpretation of section 24 of the Act. I respectfully subscribe to the view taken in Smt. Banso's case (supra) and Mst. Balbir Kaur's case (supra). 14. The respondent has not complied with the order of the Court dated, December 5, 1980, by which one month's time was allowed to pay the amount of maintenance and litigation expensess. He has not paid anything towards maintenance or litigation expenses. I respectfully subscribe to the view taken in Smt. Banso's case (supra) and Mst. Balbir Kaur's case (supra). 14. The respondent has not complied with the order of the Court dated, December 5, 1980, by which one month's time was allowed to pay the amount of maintenance and litigation expensess. He has not paid anything towards maintenance or litigation expenses. Keeping in view object of section 24 of the Act and following Smt. Banso's cage (supra) and Mst. Balbir Kaur's case (supra) the appeal has to be allowed. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by the respondent is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of this appeal.Appeal allowed. *******