ORDER
G.C. Garg, J.
1. Appellant herein filed a petition Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by way of divorce which was dismissed by learned Addl. District Judge, vide order dated 1.9.1994, Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the appellant husband has filed the present appeal. On an application, Under Section 24 of the Act moved by the respondent-wife, a Division Bench of this Court having regard to the income of the husband fixed maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 600/- per month from the date of the said application viz. 30.11.1994. Besides, the respondent-wife was also held entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses. The respondent-wife has now moved this application (C.M. No. 7090/C-II of 1995) Under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a direction of this Court to the appellant to comply with the order of the Division Bench or to dismiss the appeal, on the ground of non-payment of maintenance pendente lite, after striking off the defence of the appellant.
2. It may at the very outset be mentioned here that notice of this application was issued to the learned counsel for the appellant, Shri T.P.S. Tung, Advocate for 19.7.1995. On 19.7.1995, neither Mr. K.S. Dadwal nor Mr. T.P.S. Tung, Advocates for the respondent and appellant, respectively, put in appearance. On the next two three dates from which the matter had to be adjourned i.e. on 22.8.1995, 31.8.1995 and 4.9.1995 Mr. Tung, learned counsel for the appellant did not put in appearance and the matter was ultimately adjourned to 5.9.1995 when Mr. Tung appeared and sought time to file reply and to argue the matter. At his request the matter was adjourned for today. But surprisingly, neither any reply has been filed nor Mr. Tung has put in appearance and faced with these circumstances, I am left with no option but to dispose of the application on its own merits.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has been heard.
Pursuant to the order dated 7.4.1995 passed by the Division Bench granting maintenance pendente lite a sum of about Rs. 8500/- is due to the respondent-wife from the appellant which has not been paid. In the wake of the categoric stand of the respondent-wife that maintenance pendente lite has not been paid to her and in the absence of any reply or document evidencing the payment thereof by the appellant, it has to be held that maintenance pendente lite and the litigation expenses as ordered by this Court have not been paid to the respondent. In the above situation, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon Amarjit Kaur v. Sohan Singh, (1979)81 P.L.R. 749 and contended that on the failure of the husband to pay maintenance pendente lite to the wife, as allowed by the court, the defence of the former has to be struck off. Learned counsel thus pray that since the appellant herein has failed to make the payment of maintenance pedente lite and litigation expenses his defence may be struck off and consequently the appeal filed by him may be dismissed.
4. I have considered the whole matter. In Amarjit Kaur’s case (supra), it was found that the husband had failed to pay the maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses to the wife, as allowed by the Court. Consequently, his defence was struck off and husband’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed. In the present case as well, as noticed above, the appellant has not made the payment of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses as were allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 7.4.1995. In these circumstances, the defence of the appellant-husband is struck off and as a consequence thereof, the appeal stands dismissed. The Civil Misc. shall stand disposed of accordingly.