JUDGMENT Mr. Jaspal Singh, J.:- The present appeal has been preferred by Smt. Priyanka (wife) feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated January 22, 2011 whereby the petition filed under Section 13 (i)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) as amended up-to-date for dissolution of marriage between the parties, was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case contained in the petition are that her marriage was solemnized with the respondent on June 20, 2009 at village Nimali according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was consummated but no child was born out of their wedlock. It has been alleged by her that the respondenthusband and his family members started maltreating, abusing, harassing and beating her as they were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of her marriage being greedy person. They also compelled and coerced her to bring money from her parents so that he may quench the lust of his drinking. Even he also raised a demand of a motorcycle and on failure to meet his demand, she was made to suffer mental as well as physical cruelty. For sometime, she tolerated all these sufferings just to keep peace in the family but the respondent did not desist from harassing her. The respondent continued giving merciless beatings to her. When all these facts were narrated by her to her parents, her father convened Panchayat with a view to make the respondent understand as well as his family members. Ultimately, in the month of June, 2010, she was turned out of matrimonial home. Since then, she is living with her parents. She suffered mental as well as physical cruelty at the hands of the respondent during the period of one year of her marriage with the respondent and now, it is not possible for her to live with him under one roof, he being an habitual drunkard and addicted to other intoxicants. Efforts made for reconciliation also could not fetch any fruitful result. Then, she was constrained to seek divorce. 3. In response to the notice of the petition, the respondent appeared and resisted the petition. He filed written statement, controverting the allegations levelled in the petition alleging to be false and fabricated just to achieve her evil desire to get divorce and further enable herself to marry with some other boy, who could give handsome amount to her parents. 3. In response to the notice of the petition, the respondent appeared and resisted the petition. He filed written statement, controverting the allegations levelled in the petition alleging to be false and fabricated just to achieve her evil desire to get divorce and further enable herself to marry with some other boy, who could give handsome amount to her parents. It has been further alleged that the marriage was of the nature of exchange i.e. Adla Badli. The petitioner was married with the respondent and the sister of the respondent was married in village Beghpur @ Badhpur to Gandhra, who is the sister-in-law (Nanad) of the sister of the respondent. Such a custom is prevailing in the society of the parties to the petition. It has further been alleged that the petitioner conceived child twice during her stay with him but got herself aborted without his consent and knowledge. She left the matrimonial home in the month of June, 2010 and after a short period of about 2 months, she preferred the divorce petition. He accordingly prayed for the dismissal of the petition. 4. From the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned District Judge, (Family Court) Bhiwani, in order to settle the matter in controversy between the parties:- “1. Whether the marriage between the parties to the petition is liable to be dissolved by way of decree of divorce on the grounds as stated in the petition ? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action and no locus standi to file the present petition ?OPR 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 4. Relief.” 5. After appraisal of the evidence of the parties and hearing arguments, the divorce petition filed by the petitioner-wife was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 22.01.2011. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.01.2011, the petitioner-wife preferred the instant appeal. During the pendency of the instant appeal, vide order dated November 29, 2011, this Court had directed the respondent to bring an amount of Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses, which has not been paid despite the appeal was adjourned time and again for the purpose. Earlier, the respondent was represented by Shri Manish Kumar Garg, Advocate but today none has come present on his behalf. 7. 15,000/- as litigation expenses, which has not been paid despite the appeal was adjourned time and again for the purpose. Earlier, the respondent was represented by Shri Manish Kumar Garg, Advocate but today none has come present on his behalf. 7. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the litigation expenses in compliance of the order dated November 29, 2011 have not been paid by the respondent despite direction given in this regard. So in such circumstances, the defence of the respondent is liable to struck-off and after accepting all the allegations made by the appellant-wife in the petition, the divorce petition deserves to be allowed. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court captioned as Balwinder Kaur vs. Kashmir Singh, 1993 (3) RRR 539 and Rani vs. Parkash Singh, 1996 (2) PLR 219 . 8. In Balwinder Kaur’s case (supra) this Court had categorically observed that once the defence of the husband is struck-off on account of non-payment of litigation expenses and the maintenance pendente lite, the wife is entitled to the relief claimed in the appeal. The facts in the instant case are almost identical. 9. In Rani’ case (supra), the appeal preferred by the wife against the decree of divorce after the defence of the husband was struck-off on account of non-payment of litigation expenses and the maintenance pendente lite, was allowed. Para 7 of the judgment reads as under:- “No doubt, wife can file a petition under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC for the recovery of this amount and the husband can be hauled up under the contempt of Courts also for disobedience of the aforesaid Court’s order, but Section 24 of the Act empowers the matrimonial Court to make an order for maintenance pendente lite and for expenses of proceedings to a needy and indigent spouse. If this amount is not made available to the applicant, then the object and purpose of this provision stand defeated. Wife cannot be forced to take time consuming execution proceedings for realising this amount. The conduct of the respondent husband amounts to contumacy. Law is not that powerless as to not to bring the husband to book. If the husband has failed to make the payment of maintenance and litigation expenses to the wife, his defence can be struck out. Wife cannot be forced to take time consuming execution proceedings for realising this amount. The conduct of the respondent husband amounts to contumacy. Law is not that powerless as to not to bring the husband to book. If the husband has failed to make the payment of maintenance and litigation expenses to the wife, his defence can be struck out. No doubt, in this appeal he is respondent. His defence is contained in his petition filed under Section 13 of the Act. In a plethora of decisions of this Court Smt. Swarno Devi v. Piara Ram, 1975 H.L.R. 15; Gurdev Kaur v. Dalip Singh, 1980 H.L.R. 240; Smt. Surinder Kaur v. Baldev Singh, 1980 H.L.R. 514; Sheela Devi v. Madan Lal, 1981 H.L.R. 126 and Sumrati Devi v. Jai Parkash, 1985 (1) H.L.R. 84 it is held that when the husband fails to pay maintenance and litigation expenses to the wife, his defence is to be struck out. The consequence is that the appeal is to be allowed and his petition under Section 13 of the Act is to be dismissed.” Similar observations were made by this Court in cases titled as Snehlata vs. Joginder Singh, 2011 (6) RCR (Crminal) 2614 and Meera vs. Yogesh Kumar, 2011 (6) RCR (Criminal) 2612. 10. Adverting to the facts of the case in hand, undeniably, the respondent has not complied with the directions given to him by this Court vide order dated November 29, 2011 and has not made the payment of litigation expenses, despite the fact that a period of more than one and half year has elapsed. Even he did not care to appear in the Court rather learned counsel appearing on his behalf also abstained from the proceedings. Due to non-compliance of order dated November 29, 2011, his defence is struck off and the plea of the appellant-wife is accepted. 11. In view of the above, the appeal preferred by the appellant-wife is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.01.2011 are set aside. 12. Consequently, petition preferred by the appellant-wife under Section 13 (i) (i-a) of the Act is accepted and the marriage of the parties to the appeal is dissolved by a decree of divorce. --------------------