JUDGEMENT 1. Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan learned counsel for the husband submits that Rs. 15,000/- has been deposited in terms of the order dated 24-10-2005. 2. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that instead of formally admitting the matter, it may be heard and decided at this stage itself. 3. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband. The wife-respondent filed a petition for grant of divorce before the trial Court on the ground that her husband is treating her with cruelty and also deserted her. This petition was allowed after striking off the defence of the husband on account of non-payment of arrears of alimony. 4. During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondent-wife also filed an application for grant of interim maintenance which was allowed vide order dated 21-9-2004 and maintenance of Rs. 800/- per month along with litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 2000/- was awarded in favour of the wife. Thereafter the case was fixed for 13-4-2005 for evidence of the respondent-wife. The witnesses were present and examined in chief. When they were to be cross-examined, the counsel for the respondent-wife objected that the respondent-husband could not be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses since the husband had not deposited the arrears of maintenance awarded to wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The counsel for the husband immediately offered to deposit a sum of Rs. 5000/- out of the amount of Rs. 13000/- approximately due at that time. 5. The learned trial Court did not accept this offer and only on the ground that the husband had not paid the arrears of maintenance pendente lite did not permit him to cross-examine the petitioner-wifes witnesses. His evidence was closed for the same reason on 13-4-2005 itself and on the same date arguments were heard and the impugned judgement and decree of divorce in favour of the wife was passed. 6. Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan learned counsel for the appellant-husband urges that the mere fact that the husband was unable to pay the arrears of maintenance pendente lite was not a ground to close his defence and that too without affording any opportunity to him to pay the arrears of maintenance. 7. On the other hand, Mr. 6. Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan learned counsel for the appellant-husband urges that the mere fact that the husband was unable to pay the arrears of maintenance pendente lite was not a ground to close his defence and that too without affording any opportunity to him to pay the arrears of maintenance. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Dinesh Sharma learned counsel for the wife-respondent relies upon the judgement of this Court in Jai Singh v. Smt. Khimi Bhiklu and another, AIR 1978 HP 45, wherein this Court held that the trial Court can invoke its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC and close the defence of the delinquent spouse who despite an order directing him to deposit the maintenance pendente lite deliberately and contumaciously flouts the said order. 8. I am afraid this judgement cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. In Jai Singhs case (AIR 1978 HP 45), the husband had taken a number of opportunities to pay the arrears. In fact, the wife undertook to produce all her evidence on 17-3-1973 in case the husband paid her Rs. 200/- by 2-3-1973. On 17-3-1973, the husband flatly refused to pay the amount and in such circumstances the defence of the husband was struck off. The facts of the present case are totally different. In the present case the evidence of the respondent-wife was present but the appellant-husband was prevented from cross-examining the said witnesses. His evidence was closed on the same date and the case was also decided on the same date and a decree of divorce was granted to the wife without affording any opportunity to the husband. 9. Even if the husband had not obeyed the orders of the Court and had not deposited the arrears of interim alimony, then also before taking a drastic measure of striking off the evidence, he should have been given a reasonable opportunity to pay the arrears of pendente lite. 9. Even if the husband had not obeyed the orders of the Court and had not deposited the arrears of interim alimony, then also before taking a drastic measure of striking off the evidence, he should have been given a reasonable opportunity to pay the arrears of pendente lite. The proper courses would have been to permit the wife to lead her evidence and Court could have directed the husband to pay some portion of the arrears of maintenance and on payment of such amount he could have been permitted him to cross-examine the witnesses produced by his wife and the husband should have further been directed that only in case he deposits the total arrears of maintenance pendente lite he would be permitted to lead his own evidence. Striking off evidence is a very serious matter. It renders the party defenceless. This action is to be taken only as last resort when all other means fail. It cannot be used as short cut to divest any party of its valuable right to cross-examine the witnesses of the opposite side and to lead evidence in support of its case. In case where the offending party has willfully disobeyed the orders of the Court, the Court can strike off the defence. However, before taking such action, the offending spouse must be given an opportunity to make amends and pay the arrears. There may be cases where even though interim alimony has been awarded, the husband for various reasons, beyond his control, is unable to pay any amount to the wife. In such cases the defence cannot be struck off merely because he has not paid the arrears of maintenance pendente lite. However, the Court has the power, where the offending spouse despite having sufficient income is trying to avoid its liability to pay the maintenance pendente lite to strike off his defence but this action should only be taken after affording reasonable opportunity to the offending spouse to pay all the arrears. The Court must come to the conclusion that the offending spouse is willfully disobeying the orders before taking such action. 10. The Court must come to the conclusion that the offending spouse is willfully disobeying the orders before taking such action. 10. In the present case no such opportunity whatsoever was given to the offending spouse to make amends and in my opinion, the trial Court has acted in a very hasty manner in striking off the defence of the husband on the first date when the wifes evidence was present. Therefore, the order, judgement and decree dated 13-4-2005 passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur are set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned District Judge to proceed from the stage of recording of the petitioners evidence. 11. Since the husband has deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as arrears towards maintenance pendente lite, he shall be permitted to cross examine the witnesses produced by the wife. In case the wife does not want to lead any other evidence, the learned trial Court shall fix a date for cross-examination of the witnesses. On or before the said date the respondent shall pay/deposit the remaining amount of maintenance. The cost of the summoning of the witnesses shall be borne by the husband. However, it shall be the duty of the wife to produce her witnesses and thereafter the husband be permitted to lead his evidence. 12. The present appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Bilaspur on 9-1-2006. The Registry is directed to sent the record of the case back to the learned trial Court so as to reach there well before the date fixed. CMPs Nos. 371, 372 and 1073/05. 13. These applications have been moved by both the spouses for grant of maintenance pendente lite. Since the appeal has been allowed and the case remanded, no orders are called for on these applications. However, the parties shall be at liberty to file application for grant of interim maintenance and/or modification of order dated 21-9-2004 before the trial Court who shall decide the same on merits. Order accordingly.