Judgment Jaspal Singh, J. Feeling dissatisfied against order dated November 29, 2012 passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Hisar whereby, the petition preferred under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as amended up-to-date (for short, “the Act”) was dismissed, Boop Singh husband/appellant has preferred the instant appeal. 2. The facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that during the pendency of the petition under Section 13 of the Act, respondent/wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act, claiming maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. That application was disposed of vide order dated April 30, 2011 and the respondent/appellant was directed to pay maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.1500/- per month from the date of filing of the application i.e. November 26, 2010 besides litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.3300/-. Husband/appellant made the payment only upto Rs.10,000/- but failed to pay arrears of maintenance pendente-lite despite the fact that sufficient opportunity was afforded to him to comply with the order. A sum of Rs.29,000/- was outstanding against him upto November 16, 2012 as arrears of interim maintenance allowance. Ultimately, due to nonpayment of balance amount of Rs.29,000/- petition under Section 13 of the Act was dismissed. 3. In order to test the bona-fide of the husband/appellant, he was directed to bring the demand draft of Rs.50,000/- drawn in favour of respondent/wife by this Court vide order dated February 7, 2013 and in compliance thereof, he handed over two demand drafts of Rs.25,000/- each drawn in favour of the respondent/wife. Accordingly, notice of motion was issued to the respondent. In response to the notice, Mr. Sandeep Goyat, Advocate appeared and represented the respondent/wife. 4. Besides the payment of a sum of Rs.50,000/- he was further directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- on account of maintenance payable upto November 16, 2013 by way of demand draft payable in favour of respondent/wife and that order was also complied with. 5. In view of the facts narrated above, it appears that there was no mala fide on the part of the appellant for the non-payment of the arrears and it could be due to certain unavoidable circumstances at that time. So, we are of the considered view that the petition under Section 13 of the Act deserves to be decided on merits. So, we are of the considered view that the petition under Section 13 of the Act deserves to be decided on merits. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and impugned order dated November 29, 2012 is set aside and the divorce petition is remitted back to the Court of learned District Judge, Family Court, Hisar for deciding it afresh in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective pleadings.