KABUL SINGH Vs. BALJINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KABUL Singh, appellant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act') for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife i. e. the respondent. The petition was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana by judgment and decree dated 1. 2. 1993. The appellant has challenged the same in the present appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, Baljinder Kaur, respondent wife filed an application under Section 24 read with Section 26 of the Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses, being Civil Misc. No. 82 M of 1993 which came to be heard by Amarjeet Chaudhary, J. who by order dated 12. 11. 1993 fixed a sum of Rs. 400/- as maintenance pendente lite and Rs. 1650/- as litigation expenses. It was further ordered that the maintenance along with litigation expenses were to be paid by 5. 12. 1993.

(2.) NOW the respondent-wife has filed Civil Misc. Application No. 3372/c. II of 1994 praying for dismissal of the above mentioned appeal for non-payment of maintenance by the appellant, as granted by order dated 12. 11. 1993. The application is supported by an affidavit of the respondent. Notice to this application was given to the counsel opposite, Shri S. S. Salar, Advocate, for the appellant, for today.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. G. S. Punia, learned counsel for the respondent-wife has repeated his contention that the respondent has not been paid any amount whatsoever in pursuance of the order of Amarjeet Chaudhary, J. dated 12. 11. 1993. Learned counsel for the appellant has frankly stated that he has no instruction from the appellant, therefore, he is not able to be accept or rebut the contention of the counsel for the respondent-wife. As noticed above, the averments of the respondent that she has not been paid any amount of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses fixed by order dated 12. 11. 93 are supported by her affidavit. In these circumstance, there is no reason to disbelieve the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that in spite of the order of this court the appellant has not cared to comply with the order. Therefore, I am clearly in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that in view of the defiant attitude of the appellant is clearly disobeying the orders of this Court the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant husband is dismissed with costs.