Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. This appeal by the appellant/wife is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.2.1997 passed by the learned District Judge Jalandhar, dismissing the petition filed for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act). 2. The case set up by the appellant/wife was that the parties were married on 7.5.1981 in accordance with Sikh rites at village Gill, District Jalandhar. 3. After the marriage the parties resided and cohabited as husband and wife at village Todarwal, District Kapurthala and no issue was born from the wed-lock. The respondent/husband was said to be greedy person and addicted to drinking. Allegations were levelled that the appellant was turned out of the matrimonial home by the respondent/husband and his family members for brining less dowry. It was also pleaded that she was severely beaten by the respondent under the influence of liquor and a demand for TV and Sofa Set was raised. The appellant was finally turned out of the matrimonial home and in spite of money having been paid by the parents of the appellant/wife. The respondent spent the amount received for purchase of TV in consuming liquor. 4. It is also pleaded that in the month of July, 1984 respondent/ husband demanded more money for going to "Musket" but on her inability to meet the demand she was given severe beating and turned out of house. Attempts for reconciliation failed. It was claimed that the appellant was deserted by the respondent for a continuous period of not less than 2 years immediately preceding the presentation of petition under section 13 of the Act, and that the parties were living separately since 15.12.1992. 5. The petition was contested. 6. Learned matrimonial court decided issue of cruelty as well as desertion against the appellant and dismissed the petition. 7. The learned matrimonial court held that as the appellant had earlier withdrawn the petition for divorce in December, 1992, the allegations of desertion and cruelty, thus, stood condoned as after withdrawal of first petition, no new cause had arisen to file the present petition. 8. The appellant/wife along with the appeal, filed a petition under section 24 of the Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. 9. 8. The appellant/wife along with the appeal, filed a petition under section 24 of the Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. 9. The respondent/husband also moved an application under section 24 of the Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite, by claiming that he had no source of income. 10. The application moved by the husband was dismissed, whereas the application moved by the appellant/wife was allowed, and it was ordered that the respondent shall pay maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 700/- (Rupees seven hundred only) per month. Maintenance was directed to be paid from the date of the application i.e. 17.3.1997. She was further held entitled to a sum of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in spite of the order having been passed, the respondent/husband has not paid the maintenance pendente lite, or the litigation expenses as ordered by this court on 12.3.1998. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, is that the defence of the respondent/husband is liable to be struck off, on account of non-payment of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. 12. No body has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent to controvert the stand taken by the appellant. Resultantly, the defence of the respondent/husband is ordered to be struck off for non-payment of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. 13. In view of the striking off defence of the respondent/husband this appeal is allowed. The petition filed by the appellant for grant of divorce under section 13 of the Act is allowed but with no order as to costs.