URMILA RANI Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is wife's appeal directed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Karnal, whereby petition filed by the husband, Mohinder Singh Gupta, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion has been allowed and in consequence thereof, marriage between the parties has been dissolved.

(2.) IN the present appeal, on an application filed by the wife under Section 24 of the Act, she was awarded a sum of Rs. 800/- per month as maintenance pendente lite from the date of application and Rs. 1,500/- as litigation expenses. Maintenance pendente lite had been paid in Court upto May, 1994 and thereafter, no amount has been paid by the respondent-husband. On 1.10.1996, counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the law laid down in various judgments of this Court, on account of non-payment of maintenance pendente lite, petition filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Act is to be dismissed and the present appeal allowed. Notice was issued to the counsel opposite, but no one has come forward to pay maintenance. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the sole purpose of the respondent in not making payment to the appellant is to harass her. A Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Malkan Rani v. Krishan Kumar, AIR 1961 Punjab 42, in the context of execution of the order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has held that there being no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure under which pendente lite maintenance and litigation expenses can be recovered, the Court has to exercise inherent power to advance the cause of justice though in the process the indigent spouse must benefit. The Court also held that when the Court is exercising this inherent power, then it has to take into consideration all circumstances of the case and then come to the conclusion whether the justice requires the proceedings to be adjourned or to be stayed till payment is made. In cases where defaulter's spouse has initiated proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, stay of proceedings may not be adequate and other steps may have to be taken to put the indigent spouse in funds to prosecute the proceedings. Reference be also made to judgments in Sumarti Devi v. Jai Parkash, 1985(1) HLR 84 and Smt. Santosh v. Hari Singh, 1985(2) HLR 557. In the present case, respondent has been given enough opportunity to comply with the order granting maintenance, but he has neither complied with the order nor has he shown any sufficient cause for non-compliance of the same. In this view of the matter, decree of divorce passed in his favour deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Karnal, is set aside. In consequence thereof, petition under Section 13 of the Act filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. Appeal allowed.