Harpreet Kaur vs Parminder Singh

J.V. Gupta, C.J.—This petition is dirceted against the order of Sub-Judge I Class, Rajpura dated 10-6-1988 whereby the petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights was staved on account of non-payment of the maintenance allowance fixed u/s 24 of the Act. According to the learned Trial Court "the petition is hereby stave. The file be consigned to the record room with the option that the same be recalled from that place on the payment of the expenses of the proceedings and payment of arrears of maintenance by the petitioner to the respondent."

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this course adopted by the Trial Court was not warranted. In case the husband failed to pay the arrears of maintenance and the litigation expenses, the petition should have been dismissed. In support of his contention, he referred to Balvinder Singh v. Smt. Surinder Kaur 1975 H.L.R. 387 and Mst. Plaro v. Natha Singh 1977 H.L.R. 536.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I find that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court was not warranted. In case the husband failed to pay the arrears of maintenance and the litigation expenses by the time allowed by the Court, his petition should have been dismissed instead of consigning the same to the record room. Consequently, this petition succeeds, the impugned order is set aside and the Trial Court is directed to restore the petition and pass an appropriate order after, allowing the husband one opportunity to pay the arrears of maintenance up-to-date and the litigation expenses. The petitioner is directed to appear in the Trial Court on 10-12-1990.