Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. During the pendency of the appeal, an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the appellant-wife claiming maintenance pendente-lite @ Rs. 30,000/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs. 25,000/-. On issuance of notice on the application by this Court on 03.03.2015, counsel for the respondent-husband appeared and sought time to file reply. On 07.05.2015, further time was sought by the counsel for the respondent which was granted, however, the Court directed the respondent-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards litigation expenses by the next date of hearing i.e. 17.08.2015 in the shape of bank draft. On 17.08.2015, time was sought by the counsel for the respondent for filing reply and for payment of litigation expenses and the case was adjourned to 08.09.2015. On 08.09.2015, as no litigation expenses were paid nor reply was filed, the Court considered the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and taking the unrebutted pleadings therein to be true, granted Maintenance pendente-lite @ Rs. 20,000/- per month from the date of application to the applicant-appellant-wife to be paid by the respondent-husband minus any amount being paid in any other proceedings and further litigation expenses of Rs. 25,000/- were also granted. The appeal was adjourned to 20.10.2015 for payment of arrears of maintenance.

5. In the light of the above fact that despite sufficient opportunities having been granted, maintenance pendente-lite @ Rs. 20,000 per month with adjustment/deduction of any amount having been paid in any other proceedings, from the date of application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act with further litigation expenses of Rs. 25,000/-, as ordered on 08.09.2015, having not been paid leading to the striking off the defence of the respondent-husband vide order dated 07.12.2015 and thereafter also, the case having been adjourned on various occasions, 3 of 16 referred to the mediation at the request of the counsel, which failed, the case having been listed in Court on 31.05.2017 when the counsel pleaded no instructions, notice having been issued where he has been served but chose not to appear, case adjourned for today still the respondent having not put in appearance in Court shows his conduct and intention of not wilfully complying with the order passed by this Court. This has resulted in depriving the appellant-wife of her right of maintaining herself dignifiedly despite he being capable of paying as it is not the stand of the respondent- husband and further as stated by Mr. A.S.Dhindsa, Advocate, who had been representing the respondent-husband, that despite he having informed and conveyed the order of maintenance, the appellant-husband has failed to do so and is not even responding to the telephonic calls of his counsel, leaves no manner of doubt that the respondent is intentionally, wilfully and deliberately not complying with the order passed by this Court despite his capability and capacity to pay.

23. This Court in Subhash vs. Sheela Devi, 2007 (1) RCR (Civil) 165 as also in Jai Bhagwan vs. Kamlesh, 2005 (3) RCR (Civil) 224, has, where the husband had failed to pay the maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses despite having been given opportunity to do so, held that such an act of the husband would amount to committing wrong under Section 23 of the H.M. Act disentitling him to the relief claimed by him under the H.M. Act.

24. In view of the above, it is held that non-payment of maintenance pendente-lite and/or litigation expenses by the spouse, as ordered or directed by the Court, despite opportunity having been given, would amount to wrong within the meaning of Section 23 of the H.M. Act leading to the conclusion that the said spouse is taking advantage of his/her 14 of 16 own wrong disentitling the said spouse the relief claimed under the H.M. Act.

25. Having answered the questions, we now proceed to consider the case in hand. In the present case, the orders passed by this Court having not been complied with despite various opportunities having been given to the respondent-husband and the counsel, who had appeared for him earlier, having stated that he has no instructions and requesting for issuance of notice to the respondent-husband, who, on such notice having been issued, chooses not to appear despite being served rather evade appearance before this Court with an intention to avoid payment of maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses, cannot be, thus, permitted to disregard the order passed by this Court. This Court is left with no option but to proceed in the matter as per the powers conferred under Section 23 (1) (a) of the H.M. Act and hold that the respondent-husband by not paying the maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses as well as arrears, has committed a wrong and is taking advantage of his own wrong for the purpose of claiming relief of divorce, which dis-entitles him to such decree. Thus, the appeal deserved to be allowed of the appellant-wife for this reason also.