JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife submits that arrears of maintenance have not been paid by the appellant-husband in terms of order dated 29.9.2010 and subsequent order dated 28.10.2010 passed by this Court in the present appeal. He further submitted that despite extension of time granted by this Court on 28.10.2010, even the first instalment of Rs. 50,000/- which was due to be paid by the appellant-husband on or before 31.10.2010 was paid by the appellant on 15.11.2010. The second instalment of Rs. 50,000/- which was required to be paid on or before 31.12.2010, has not been yet been paid; and due date of payment of third instalment fallen due on 28.2.2011, which is yet to come. He, therefore, submitted that on account non-compliance of the directions of this Court by the appellant-husband, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on a decision of this Court rendered in S.B.C.M.A. No. 1917/2007 - Dinesh Kumar v. Jamuna, decided on 10.1.2011 in which it was held as under : "7. Per contra, Mr. M.L. Panwar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent wife submitted that the present appeal is not maintainable and cannot be pursued because the appellant-husband has failed to comply with the directions of the learned trial Court as well as the directions given by this Court on 26.10.2009 and 11.3.2010 and has not paid a single penny of maintenance and legal expenses to the respondent-wife and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. He relied upon the following three decisions of different High Courts : i) Dinesh Kumar v. Smt. Santosh Devi, AIR 2007 Allahabad 30 ii) Smt. Santosh Sehgal v. Murari Lal Sehgal, AIR 2007 Delhi 210 iii) Subhash v. Sheela Devi, AIR 2007 Punjab & Haryana 68 11. Soon after the marriage on 4.2.1990, it appears that the respondent- wife left the matrimonial home in April, 1990 and thereafter on account of the conduct of the appellant-husband himself, the respondent-wife could not come back in the matrimonial home. NAW-2 Sri Niwas, father of the respondent No. 2 Jamuna and NAW-3 Bhanwar Lal have clearly stated in their statements that the appellant-husband had always neglected the respondent-wife and did not want to keep her in the matrimonial home. NAW-2 Sri Niwas, father of the respondent No. 2 Jamuna and NAW-3 Bhanwar Lal have clearly stated in their statements that the appellant-husband had always neglected the respondent-wife and did not want to keep her in the matrimonial home. The appellant also appears to have made false allegations of loose character of the respondent-wife as no such specific instance has been mentioned in his evidence and wild allegations only have been made which themselves amount to cruelty on the part of the appellant-husband upon the respondent-wife. Further, the fact that the appellant-husband has not cared to pay single penny despite the orders of the learned trial Court as well as this Court on account of maintenance to the respondent-wife, in light of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent-wife, the conduct of the appellant-husband cannot be appreciated and amounts to contumacious conduct which does not entitle him to any relief in the present appeal and consequential divorce decree. 12. Therefore, in the totality of the circumstances and the evidence available in the present case, this Court is satisfied that the present appeal filed by the appellant-husband deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. The appellant shall pay monthly maintenance and arrears thereof as already directed by the learned Court below. No order as to costs." 3. For the purposes of ready reference, the interim order passed by this Court on 29.9.2010, and subsequent order 28.10.2010 granting further time to deposit the first instalment to the appellant-husband, are reproduced herein below "S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 460/2008 Dated : 29.9.2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sangeet Lodha Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Arora along with Mr. Manish Tak, for the respondents 1. The matter comes up on an application (IA No. 4431/2010) preferred by the respondent Sint. Ratni Devi under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short "the Act of 1955") claiming maintenance pendent lite quantified at Rs. 8,000/-. 2. It is submitted that the respondent has no independent income to support herself and the necessary expenses of the proceedings. It is submitted that the appellant is employed as Compounder in the Department of Ayurved, Government of Rajasthan and presently, drawing gross salary of Rs. 21,615/-. It is submitted that besides income from salary, the appellant is also earning approximately Rs. It is submitted that the appellant is employed as Compounder in the Department of Ayurved, Government of Rajasthan and presently, drawing gross salary of Rs. 21,615/-. It is submitted that besides income from salary, the appellant is also earning approximately Rs. 10,000/- per month by way of part time job as Male nurse in village Kiwarli, Tehsil Abu Road, District Sirohi. Accordingly, it is submitted that the appellant is entitled for Rs. 8,000/- as maintenance pendent lite to meet her requirements. 3. On the other hand, the appellant in his reply to the application has taken the stand that the respondent is engaged in tailoring work and she is earning about Rs. 8,000/- per month and thus, she has sufficient in to maintain herself. It is submitted that the appellant has no other source of income except the income from salary which he is receiving being employed as Male nurse with the Department of Ayurved, Government of Rajasthan. 4. Indisputably, the purpose behind Section 24 of the Act of 1955 is to provide necessary financial assistance to the party to the matrimonial dispute who has no sufficient means to maintain himself/herself or to bear the expenses of the proceedings. While considering the application for award of interim maintenance, the relevant consideration is the inability of the spouse to maintain himself or herself for want of independent income or inadequacy of the income to maintain at the level of social status of other spouse. However, no hard and fast rule can be laid down for determination of the amount of interim maintenance. 5. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the appellant employed as Male nurse in the Department of Ayurved, Government of Rajasthan, is presently drawing salary of Rs. 21,615/- per month. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the respondent has any source of income. 6. Thus, having regard to the income of the appellant and on overall consideration of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that an amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month would be a sufficient amount to be paid by the appellant to the respondent towards maintenance during the pendency of the appeal. The appellant is entitled for maintenance pendent lite from the ate of filing of the appeal. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The appellant is directed to pay the respondent a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month would be a sufficient amount to be paid by the appellant to the respondent towards maintenance during the pendency of the appeal. The appellant is entitled for maintenance pendent lite from the ate of filing of the appeal. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The appellant is directed to pay the respondent a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month front the date of filing of the appeal i.e. 24.3.2008 and shall continue to pay the like amount every month till the disposal of the appeal. The arrear of maintenance for the period from 1.4.2008 to 30.9.2010 shall be paid by the respondent in three instalments, the first instalment of Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid by the appellant latest by 31.10.2010 and thereafter, remaining two instalments of Rs. 50,000/- each shall be paid by 31.12.2010 and 28.2.2011 respectively. The monthly maintenance shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondent by every seventh day of the succeeding month." Sd/- (Sangeet Lodha), J." ORDER dated 28.10.2010 "S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 460/2008. D/d. 28.10.2010 Hon'ble Mr. justice Sangeet Lodha Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, for the appellant Mr. Bhoom Kumar on behalf of Mr. Rakesh Arora, for the respondents. The matter comes upon the application preferred on behalf of appellant for extension of time, to deposit the first instalment of Rs. 50,000/- in compliance of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 29.9.2010. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not been able to make arrangements to deposit the first instalment, may be further extended for a period of one month. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant has already deposited 212,000/- by way of four instalments of Rs. 3.000/- and therefore, the said amount deserves to be adjusted against the amount of first instalment to be deposited in terms of order dated 29.9.2010 passed by this Court. The application is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It is submitted that already sufficient time has been granted. to the appellant and, therefore, no further extension should be granted. However, the prayer made on behalf of the appellant for adjustment of amount of Rs. 12,000/- is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. The application is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It is submitted that already sufficient time has been granted. to the appellant and, therefore, no further extension should be granted. However, the prayer made on behalf of the appellant for adjustment of amount of Rs. 12,000/- is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. On the facts and in the circumstances of this case noticed above, in considered opinion of this Court, the appellants deserves to be granted two weeks' further time to deposit the amount. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The appellant may deposit first instalment after adjustment of Rs. 12.000/- already paid i.e. Rs. 38,000/-, latest by 15.11.2010. Sd/- (Sangeet Lodha), J." 4. In the case of Subhash v. Sheela Devi, reported in AIR 2007 Punjab & Haryana 68 , the Punjab High Court relying upon a decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Firachand Srinivas Managaonkar v. Sunanda, 2001 (1) Marriage Law Journal 624 : AIR 2001 SC 125 as held as under : "5. I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-wife that non-payment of maintenance pendent-lite amounts to committing wrong under Section 23 of the Act and, therefore, the appellant-husband is not entitled to decree of divorce on this ground alone. The Apex Court in Hira Chand's case, AIR 2001 SC 1285 (supra) has categorically held that refusal to pay maintenance by the husband to the wife, as ordered by the Court, amounts to committing a wrong within the meaning of Section 23 of she Act and trial Court was held to be justified in declining the prayer of the husband for dissolution of marriage. It was further held that while considering the matter regarding divorce between the parties, non- payment of maintenance allowance is one of the relevant consideration. Even otherwise, the appellant-husband in his cross-examination himself stated that he was not ready to keep the respondent-wife with him." 5. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Santsoh Sehgal v. Murari Lal Sehgal, reported in AIR 2007 Delhi 210 , has held as under: "5. Even otherwise, the appellant-husband in his cross-examination himself stated that he was not ready to keep the respondent-wife with him." 5. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Santsoh Sehgal v. Murari Lal Sehgal, reported in AIR 2007 Delhi 210 , has held as under: "5. The reference to the portion of the judgment in Bani's case ( AIR 1996 P&H 175 ) extracted herein-above would show that the Punjab and Haryana Court and Orissa High Court have taken a unanimous view that in case the husband commits default in payment of interim maintenance to his wife and children then he is not entitled to any matrimonial relief in proceedings by or against him. The view taken by Punjab and Haryana high Court in Bani's case has been followed by a Single judge of this Court in Satish Kumar v. Meena, (2001) DLT 545 . We tend to agree with this principle of law. We are of the view that when a husband is negligent and does not pay maintenance to his wife as awarded by the Court, then how such a person is entitled to the relief claimed by him in the matrimonial proceedings. We have no hesitation in holding that in case the husband fails to pay maintenance and litigation expenses to his wife granted by the Court during the pendency of the appeal then the appeal filed by the wife against the decree of divorce granted by the trial Court in favour of the husband has to be allowed. Hence the question referred to us for decision is answered in the affirmative." 6. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar v. Smt. Santosh Devi, reported in AIR 2007 Allahabad 30 , while dealing with similar controversy has held as under : "5. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the order under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act was passed by the trial Court on 24.12.2004 directing the appellant to deposit the litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 2,000/- and pay the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent-wife but admittedly that order had not been complied with. In the revision filed against that order no stay order was obtained. Therefore, there has been obvious non compliance of the said order throughout. 2,000/- and pay the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent-wife but admittedly that order had not been complied with. In the revision filed against that order no stay order was obtained. Therefore, there has been obvious non compliance of the said order throughout. In case, such litigation expenses are not paid to the wife, the Court cannot compel her to file the written statement or to pronounce ex parte judgment under Order 8, Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code in the suit. On the contrary what was legally required for the trial Court was that it should have dismissed the divorce petition itself for non compliance of its order dated 24.12.2004. The defendant-wife is not supposed to be in a position to file the written statement and contest the suit in such circumstances when the litigation expenses, as directed by the Court, had not been paid to her by the petitioner-husband. In such situation, if the Court proceeds to pronounce ex parte judgment under Order 8, Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code against the wife, it would be nothing but doing mockery with the procedure provided for that purpose. In this view of the matter alone the lower appellate Court has interfered with the order of the trial Court and has validly set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Court below as to occasion interference against the same by this Court." 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband initially prayed for some time to take instructions from the appellant as to why instalment due to be paid on or before 31.12.2010 has not been paid by him. Furthermore, neither any proof of such payment, nor any application seeking further extension of time has been filed before this Court. Therefore, it is believed that appellant has no reasonable cause in not paying the arrears of maintenance to respondent-wife. 8. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband against rejection of his application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce from his wife (respondent herein). Therefore, it is believed that appellant has no reasonable cause in not paying the arrears of maintenance to respondent-wife. 8. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband against rejection of his application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce from his wife (respondent herein). However, in view of the judgments cited above (supra), upon which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the respondent, this Court is not inclined to grant further indulgence to the appellant-husband who has not complied with the directions of this Court directing him to make payment of arrears in instalments awarded in favour of respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Accordingly, the present misc. appeal deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed in the same terms. The appellant-husband shall pay the arrears and monthly maintenance as already directed. No costs.Appeal dismissed. *******