RAMESH Vs. RAJPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rajpati-respondent in the present appeal filed a petition for dissolution of marriage between her and Ramesh (the present appellant). In the petition which was filed by her on 1/09/1999, it was stated by her that the marriage between parties had been solemnised about five years ago at Hissar. It was further pleaded by her in the petition that at the time of her marriage she was 14 years of age. It was further pleaded that she had never visited her husband's house and no cohabitation took place between the parties. The petitioner after having attained the age of 18 years, a Panchayat was convened to settle Smt. Maina, elder sister of the petitioner who was married with the elder brother of the husband. The elder brother of the husband refused to keep the elder sister of the petitioner. At that time the wife had repudiated her marriage with the appellant-husband in the presence of the aforesaid Panchayat. It was stated by her in the petition that in fact the marriage had been repudiated when she was about 17 years of age.

(2.) Upon notice of the divorce petition given to the respondent-husband, he appeared and contested the same by filing a written statement. The averments made in the divorce petition were contested. It was denied by him that the wife was minor at the time of solemnisation of the marriage between the parties. On the other hand it was stated that the wife was marriageable and in fact she was more than 19 years of age. It was also pleaded by the husband that the wife and her elder sister had filed respective divorce petitions with an ulterior motive to get divorce on false and frivolous grounds.

(3.) During the course of proceedings before the learned trial Court, an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed and the husband was directed to make payment of an amount of Rs. 800.00 per month towards maintenance pendente lite and an amount of Rs. 1500.00 towards litigation expenses vide order dated 9/08/2000. The aforesaid order was confirmed by this Court in revision. In spite of the aforesaid orders, the amount of pendente lite and litigation expenses were not paid by the husband. Consequently, the defence of the husband was struck off vide order dated 5/10/2000.