Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 737 (PNJ)

Neelam v. Om Parkash

2009-04-20

S.D.ANAND

body2009
Judgment S.D.Anand, J. 1. The petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed by the learned District Judge, Narnaul, vide judgment and decree dated 7.3.2006. The appellant-wife filed an appeal against it. 2. In appeal, this Court (vide order dated 30.10.2006) directed that the respondent-husband shall pay (to the appellant wife) a sum of Rs.1500/- per month towards maintenance pendent elite with effect from the date of the filing of the application and also pay a sum of Rs.7500/- towards litigation expenses. The amount aforementioned was ordered to be paid within one month from the date of order passed by this Court. However, the order was not complied with. Thereafter, the wife filed an application for Enhancement of the maintenance pendente lite and also for a direction to the respondent-husband to pay the litigation expenses and the arrears of maintenance pendente lite. The filing of that application was notified to the learned counsel for the respondent.The learned counsel, who appeared on behalf of the respondent, sought time to have instructions about whether the arrears of maintenance pendente lite had been paid or not. On that date i.e. 20.1.2009, this Court passed the following order:- "Apart from the grievance that the arrears of maintenance of pendente lite have not been paid, there is also a request for enhancement of maintenance pendente lite in view of the rise in prices and also because of the admission of the minor child into a public school wherein a fairly high amount of fee is to be paid. Learned counsel for the respondent states that he has no instructions about whether the arrears have been paid or not. He wants to file counter to the enhancement plea. It is made clear that in case payment of arrears is not been found to have made and that amount also not paid by the next date of hearing, the Court may consider striking off the defence of the respondent husband." 3. On the adjourned date too, the payment was not made. The matter was adjourned to 18.3.2009. It is made clear that in case payment of arrears is not been found to have made and that amount also not paid by the next date of hearing, the Court may consider striking off the defence of the respondent husband." 3. On the adjourned date too, the payment was not made. The matter was adjourned to 18.3.2009. On that date, the following order was passed by this Court : - "Vide order dated 30.10.2006, A Division Bench of this Court ordered that an interim maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.1, 500/- per month shall be payable to the appellant wife (and by the respondent husband) with effect from the date of that application. Besides this, a sum of Rs.7, 500/- was also payable to the appellant wife towards litigation expenses. Through the C.M., the appellant wife applied for a direction to the respondent husband to pay up the arrears. There is also a plea for enhancement of the maintenance pendente lite. After noticing these very facts, this Court passed the following order on 20.01.2009: - Apart from the grievance that the arrears of maintenance of pendente lite have not been paid, there is also a request for enhancement of maintenance pendente lite in view of the rise in prices and also because of the admission of the minor child into a public school wherein a fairly high amount of fee is to be paid. Learned counsel for the respondent states that he has no instructions about whether the arrears have been paid or not. He wants to file counter to the enhancement plea. It is made clear that in case payment of arrears is not been found to have made and that amount also not paid by the next date of hearing, the Court may consider striking off the defence of the respondent husband" None has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent husband. Learned counsel for the appellant wife states at the bar that, as per his instructions, the payment of arrears has not been made till date by the respondent husband. The respondent husband is given yet another opportunity, in the interests of justice, to react to the facts noticed in the order dated 20.01.2009. Adjourned to 20.04.2009. " 4. Today, none has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. The respondent husband is given yet another opportunity, in the interests of justice, to react to the facts noticed in the order dated 20.01.2009. Adjourned to 20.04.2009. " 4. Today, none has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. There is also nothing on record to indicate that arrears of maintenance pendente lite had been paid to the appellant wife. The present is, thus, a case of contumacious ommission on the part of the respondent in not complying with the order of this Court to pay maintenance pendente lite to the appellant-wife. 5. In that view of things, this appeal shall stand allowed. The petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the respondent-husband shall stand dismissed.