ANAND KUMAR SHARMA Vs. KANTA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the husband is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27th January, 1982 passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby the petition of the wife under Section 13(l)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed and the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce.

(2.) The respondent-wife had filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty. The acts of cruelty as alleged were that her father-in-law was misbehaving with her and wanted her to surrender to his desire of sex, the husband and his parents were not satisfied with ,the dowry brought by her and were harassing the wife for bringing more dowry and they are further allegations regarding the beatings having been given to the wife.

(3.) During the course of proceedings, the respondent-wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses on the ground that she had no sufficient means to meet the expenses. The learned trial Judge allowed the application and awarded a sum of Rs. 250.00 towards litigation expenses and Rs. 75.00 per month as maintenance pendente lite from the date of the application. This order was passed on 25th April, 1981 and the case was adjourned for payment of the.said amount to 7th May, 1981. On 7th May, 1981, the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 400.00 which covered the sum of Rs. 250.00 awarded as litigation expenses and the arrears of maintenance for two months up to 30th April, 1981. Thereafter the case was adjourned from ti to time since the Presiding Officer had vacated that seat and no new Presiding Officer had been appointed. The case was listed for 26th October, 1981, for proper orders, but on that date since the new Presiding Officer had taken over, the issues were framed. After framing the issues, the case was again adjourned to 30th November, 1981 for evidence of the petitioner and payment of the maintenance allowance. On 30th November, 1981, the case was adjourned as there was notime available with the court.' It was also directed in the said order that the maintenance had not been paid and the same should be paid on the next date of hearing which will be considered to be the last opportunity. The next date of healing was 14-1-1982. On that date, the appellant sent as application accompanied by a medical certificate on the ground that he was ill and prayed for adjournment of the case. The application was presented by a proxy counsel. The learned trial Judge, however, did not acceede to the request and passed an order to the effect that since the maintenance allowance had not been paid, the defence of the appellant would be struck off. He also recorded the evidence of the two witnesses of the respondent who were present in the court. An opportunity was given to the proxy counsel to cross-examine the said witnesses but he showed his inability. The petitioner closed his evidence on the same day and the case was adjourned for arguments and orders to 23rd January, 1982.