Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 265 (PNJ)

Gurmeet Kaur v. Jasbir Singh

2014-02-03

NAVITA SINGH, S.S.SARON

body2014
Mr. Navita Singh, J.: - The present appeal is filed by the wife-Gurmeet Kaur against the respondent-husband Jasbir Singh against the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, whereby the petition filed by the present respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act for short) was allowed and the marriage between the parties was dissolved. 2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 20.01.2003 according to Sikh rites at Indra Nagri, Abohar, District Ferozepur. The parties co-habited with each other and the marriage was consummated but no child was born out of the wedlock. The respondent filed the petition on the ground of desertion. The appellant came up in appeal and during the pendency of the same, filed an application under Section 24 of the Act. The application was contested by the respondent. The said application was decided by this Court on 25.03.2013 granting maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.7,000/- per month to the applicant-appellant from the date of application. Litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/- had been ordered to be paid vide order dated 03.12.2012, but the respondent had not paid the same till the application under Section 24 of the Act was decided on 25.03.2013. Therefore, he was directed to clear the arrears of maintenance along with litigation expenses by the next date of hearing, i.e. 01.05.2013. Future maintenance was also to be paid regularly by 7th of each calendar month. 3. On 01.05.2013, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent was not ready to pay arrears and as such, the defence of the respondent was struck off and the appellant was given liberty to file a petition in accordance with law for recovery of the maintenance amount. The case was posted for 30.05.2013 where-after it was adjourned to various dates and lastly to 03.02.2014, i.e. today. 4. Today, no one has appeared for the respondent. Similar was the position on the last date. It appears that the respondent is not bothered about the result of the appeal, nor has any intention to pay the arrears of maintenance. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out, first of all, that the appeal was not required to be argued on merits because it was liable to be allowed as the respondent had not paid the arrears of maintenance pendente lite and his defence is already struck off. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out, first of all, that the appeal was not required to be argued on merits because it was liable to be allowed as the respondent had not paid the arrears of maintenance pendente lite and his defence is already struck off. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the authorities reported as Kiran Bala Bangar versus Vijay Kumar Bangar, [2012(5) Law Herald (P&H) 803 : 2013(1) Marriage L.J. 182 (P&H)] : 2011 (3) PLR 425 (P&H); Krishan Kumar versus Monika Grover, 2011 (1) HLR 694 (P&H); Baljit Kaur versus Surjit Singh, 1989 (1) HLR 324 (P&H); Satish Kumar versus Meena, 2001 (6) AD (Delhi) 563; Asha Rani versus Yash Pal, 1993 (1) HLR 30 (P&H); Rani versus Parkash Singh, 1997 (2) HLR 43 (P&H); Shanti Devi versus Sham Lal, 1994 (1) HLR 205 (P&H); Santosh versus Balwinder Kumar, 1997 (1) HLR 463 (P&H); Gurjeet Kaur alias Guddi versus Amar Singh, 1997 (1) HLR 429 (P&H); Santosh Kaur versus Jagtar Singh, 1995 (3) R.R.R. 709 (P&H) and Shrimati Swarno Devi versus Shri Piara Ram 1975 (1) HLR 15 (P&H). Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to a judgment passed by this Court on 23.09.2011, in FAO No. M-1 of 2008, allowing the appeal of the wife and also the petition under Section 13 of the Act, which had been dismissed by the trial Court. 5. In all the above-said cases, maintenance pendente lite had not been paid by the husband. In Satish Kumar (supra), it was held that even pleadings could be struck off for non-compliance. In Asha Rani (supra), the appeal of the wife was allowed after striking out the defence of the husband-respondent and the petition filed by him under Section 13 of the Act was dismissed. Similar was the position in Rani and Santosh Kaur (supra). 6. Before us also, the wife is the appellant and the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Act had been allowed by the trail Court. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be allowed and the petition of the husband is liable to be dismissed. It is ordered accordingly.