Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Relief.

4. The trial court on appreciation of evidence led by the parties, decided issue No.1 in favour of the respondent holding that the respondent was entitled to a decree of divorce on the grounds pleaded in her petition. It was further observed that vide order dated 24.4.2013, it was held that the wife was entitled to ` 1500/- per month as maintenance pendente lite from the date of application filed under Section 24 of the Act, besides litigation expenses of ` 7500/- which had not been paid by the husband inspite of availing several opportunities to do so. As a consequence on 24.2.2014, the trial court had struck off the defence of the husband. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment dated 15.4.2014 passed the decree in favour of the respondent-wife dissolving the marriage between the parties. Hence, the present appeal.

8. Section 24 of the Act empowers the matrimonial court to award maintenance pendente lite and also litigation expenses to a needy and indigent spouse so that the proceedings can be conducted without any hardship on his or her part. The proceedings under this Section are summary in nature and confers a substantial right on the applicant during the pendency of the proceedings. . Where this amount is not paid to the applicant, then the very object and purpose of this provision stands defeated. No doubt, remedy of execution of decree or order passed by the matrimonial court is available under Section 28A of the Act, but the same would not be a bar to striking off the defence of the spouse who violates the interim order of maintenance and litigation expenses passed by the said Court. In other words, the striking off the defence of the spouse not honouring the court's interim order is the instant relief to the needy one instead of waiting endlessly till its execution under Section 28A of the Act. Where the spouse who is to pay maintenance fails to discharge the liability, the other spouse cannot be forced to adopt time consuming execution proceedings for realising the amount. Court cannot be a mute spectator watching flagrant disobedience of the interim orders passed by it showing its helplessness in its instant implementation. It would, thus, be appropriate even in the absence of any specific provision to that effect in the Act, to strike off the defence of the erring spouse in exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 21 of the Act rather than to leave the aggrieved party to seek its enforcement through execution as execution is a long and arduous procedure. Needless to say, the remedy under Section 28A of the Act regarding execution of decree or interim order does not stand obliterated or extinguished by striking off the defence of the defaulting spouse. Thus, where the spouse who is directed to pay the maintenance and litigation expenses, the legal consequences for its non-payment are that the defence of the said spouse is liable to be struck off.

"No doubt, wife can file a petition under Order 21 Rule 37 Civil Procedure Code 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. 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 in Smt. Swarno Devi v. Piara Ram, 1975 HLR 15; Gurdev Kaur v. Dalip Singh, 1980 HLR 240; Smt. Surinder Kaur v. Baldev Singh, 1980 HLR 514; Sheela Devi v. Madan Lal, 1981 HLR 126 and Sumrati Devi v. Jai Parkash, 1985(1) HLR 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."