Sukhraj Kaur vs Raghbir Singh on 19 August, 2009

FAO No.12-M of 2006                                         1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH



                                    FAO No.12-M of 2006

                                    Date of decision: 19.08.2009



Sukhraj Kaur                                          ..Appellant


                              Versus


Raghbir Singh                                         ...Respondent



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA




Present:-   Mr.Parveen K.Kataria, Advocate,
            for the appellant.

            Mr.D.S.Sandhu, Advocate,
            for the respondent.

                       ---

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may
be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
Digest?

—

VINOD K. SHARMA,J.(oral)

Appellant/wife has filed this appeal against the judgment and
FAO No.12-M of 2006 2

decree dated 20.10.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,

Amritsar on a petition filed by the respondent/husband under section 13 of

the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) seeking a decree of divorce.

Divorce was sought on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

Allegations of cruelty as well as desertion were denied by the

appellant. The learned matrimonial court on appreciation of evidence

decided issues of cruelty and desertion in favour of the respondent/husband.

The appellant preferred an appeal. She also filed application

under section 24 of the Act for the grant of maintenance pendente lite and

litigation expenses.

Vide order dated 13.7.2009 application moved under section 24

of the Act was allowed and maintenance pendente lite payable was fixed at

the rate of Rs1200/- (Rupees twelve hundred only). The appellant was also

granted litigation expenses of Rs.5500/- (Rupees five thousand and five

hundred only).

The case was adjourned to 29.7.2009 for payment of

maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. Respondent/husband

sought 10 days’ time to pay the maintenance fixed by this court.

Today, learned counsel for the respondents states that the

respondent is not in a position to pay the litigation expenses and

maintenance amount as fixed.

In view of the stand taken by the respondent this court has no

option but to strike of defence of respondent/husband.

Ordered accordingly.

FAO No.12-M of 2006 3

In view of the fact that the defence of the respondent stands

rejected on account of non-payment of maintenance pendente lite and

litigation expenses, this appeal is allowed. The petition filed by the

respondent/husband under section 13 of the Act is ordered to be dismissed

but with no order as to costs.

19.08. 2009                                ( VINOD K. SHARMA )
rp                                              JUDGE