Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljit Kaur vs Jasvir Singh on 1 March, 2011
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
FAO No. M-74 of 2008 (1)
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
FAO No. M-74 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision : 1.3.2011
Baljit Kaur ..... Appellant
vs
Jasvir Singh ..... Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mrs. Shashi Ghuman, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. B. S. Bhinder, Advocate, for the respondent.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment of the learned court below whereby petition filed by the appellant-wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, "the Act") for divorce, on the ground of cruelty, was dismissed Briefly the facts of the case are that the marriage of the parties was solemnised as per Sikh rites (Anand Karaj) on 10.11.2004 at village Lassara, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar. After the marriage, the parties resided in their matrimonial home at Ludhiana. Sufficient dowry was given to the respondent in the marriage. The marriage was consummated but no child was born out of the wedlock. It was alleged that after some time of the marriage, the respondent started harassing and beating the appellant. The wife lived only for seven days at her matrimonial home. Thereafter she filed petition for divorce. The respondent filed reply to the petition. The learned court below after considering the evidence on record, dismissed the petition filed by the appellant-wife for divorce vide judgment dated 30.10.2007. Aggrieved against the judgment of the learned court below, the appellant- wife filed appeal before this court.
During the pendency of the appeal, the wife filed application under Section 24 of the Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite, as also the litigation expenses. The said application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 20.10.2009, while granting ` 1,500/- per month as maintenance FAO No. M-74 of 2008 (2) pendente lite from the date of filing of application and ` 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a period of more than one year has elapsed but the respondent has not paid the maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses fixed as per order dated 20.10.2009. She prayed for striking off defence of the respondent on account of non-payment of amount of maintenance pendente lite and passing of decree of divorce in her favour. In support thereof, reliance was placed on Paramjit Kaur vs Kashmir Singh 1993 (3) R. R. R. 538, Balwinder Kaur vs Kashmir Singh 1993 (3) R. R. R. 539, Rani vs Parkash Singh 1996 (2) P. L. R. 219, and Ramesh vs Rajpati 2003 (3) P. L. R. 761.
While not disputing the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid authorities, learned counsel for the respondent-husband submitted that as the respondent never treated her wife with cruelty, the trial court after considering the evidence on record rightly dismissed her petition for divorce. It was further submitted that the wife lived only seven days at her matrimonial home. It was prayed that instead of striking off defence of the respondent, the appeal be heard on merits. The respondent is a penny less person and unable to pay the maintenance.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book.
In Balwinder Kaur's case (supra), this court held that once the defence of the husband is struck off on account of non-payment of litigation expenses and maintenance pendente lite, the wife is entitled to the relief prayed for in the appeal. The facts in the case in hand are also similar.
In Rani's case (supra), this court allowed appeal filed by wife against decree of divorce after the defence of the husband was struck off on account of non-payment of maintenance as fixed under section 24 of the Act. Relevant para 7 of the judgment is extracted below:-
"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 FAO No. M-74 of 2008 (3) 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. 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."
In Ramesh's case (supra), this court opined that with the striking off defence of the husband his written statement is taken out of consideration and the averments of the wife in the petition are considered as correct and uncontroverted and the court can proceed thereon. Relevant para 10 thereof is extracted below:-
"There is another angle to look at the matter. As at present, we have on the record of the case only the petition filed by the respondent-wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The aforesaid petition has not been controverted, inasmuch as the written statement filed by the respondent has already been kept out of the consideration. As per the provisions contained in Section 20 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act the statements FAO No. M-74 of 2008 (4) contained in every petition under the Act shall be verified by the petitioner or some other competent person in the manner required by law for the verification of the plaints, and may, at hearing, be referred to as evidence. In this view of the matter, the petition duly verified by the respondent-wife under the provisions contained in Section 20 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, is also to be treated as substantive evidence. Thus, the case of the respondent-wife is fully supported by the evidence produced by her."
Admittedly, the respondent has not paid the maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses as ordered by this court on 20.10.2009. A period of more than one year has elapsed but till date he has not paid even single penny to the appellant wife. He has also not paid maintenance before the court below. He has not even filed any appeal against the aforesaid order fixing maintenance. The person who is disobeying the order of the court, cannot be allowed to be heard on merits. Since, the respondent has not complied with the order passed by this court on 20.10.2009, his defence is struck off.
The guidance as to how to proceed further in such circumstances is available from the judgments referred to above. It has been consistently opined that after the striking off defence of the husband on account of non-payment of maintenance, the wife's allegations in the petition are to be taken as correct or the husband cannot be permitted to be heard on merits. And the court can accept the plea of the wife. Consequently, the appeal filed by the wife is allowed and the divorce petition filed by her is accepted by passing a decree of divorce in her favour.
Decree sheet be prepared.
1.3.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge