Arvind Kumar Jarolia vs Smt. Aarti Jarolia
2022 Latest Caselaw 6302 MP

                                                            1
                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                      FA No. 878 of 2015
                                            (ARVIND KUMAR JAROLIA Vs SMT. AARTI JAROLIA)

                      Dated : 27-04-2022
                             Shri Gaurav Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

                             Shri Sourabh Bhushan Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent.

This First Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 21/08/2015 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Narsinghpur in Civil Suit No.65-A/2015 whereby petition for divorce filed by the appellant/plaintiff/husband has been dismissed and the counter claim filed by the

respondent/defendant/wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights has been allowed.

This First Appeal was admitted for final hearing vide order dated 30.09.2015. Later on application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (IA No.8289/2016) filed by the respondent-wife was taken up for consideration and after hearing both the parties was decided vide order dated 22.08.2017 whereby interim maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month was ordered in favour of the respondent-wife from the date of filing of the application i.e. 24.06.2016.

Immediately thereafter an application (IA No.12294/2017) was filed by the

appellant/husband seeking relief to deposit arrears of interim maintenance in four equal installments, which was taken up for consideration and was disposed of vide order dated 03.01.2018 whereby it was ordered that the appellant shall pay arrears in three equal installments and it was made clear that the first installment shall be paid within one month and rest of the installments shall be paid within 60 days.

Order-sheet dated 22/02/2018 shows that none appeared on behalf of the appellant, therefore, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution, which was restored vide order dated 07.03.2018 passed in MCC No.682/2018. As the previous order granting interim maintenance was not complied with, therefore, the appellant himself filed another application (IA No.6396/18), which was disposed of on 11.07.2018 with the direction that the due amount shall be paid in three equal Signature SAN Verified Not installments. First installment shall be paid within one month from the date of order Digitally signed by SWETA SAHU and rest of the two installments shall be paid within sixty days. Date: 2022.04.28 18:10:54 IST

Thereafter the respondent filed application (IA No.2194/2021) seeking direction against the appellant to comply the earlier orders dated 22.08.2017 and 11.07.2018 mentioning the fact that till today the appellant has not paid a single amount of maintenance to the respondent, which was taken up for hearing on

23.03.2021 and counsel for the appellant was granted time to seek instructions. On the next date 24.06.2021 none appeared on behalf of the appellant.

Today learned counsel for the appellant submits that his client is poor and is not in a position to pay more than Rs.10 to 12,000/- p.m. and has failed to demonstrate compliance of the previous order or to deposit any amount towards the order dated 22.08.2017.

Learned counsel for the respondent has serious objection regarding non- compliance of the order passed by this court on 22.08.2017 and other two orders dated 03.01.2018 and 11.07.2018 which were passed at the request of appellant himself and prays for passing strict orders for compliance of the previous orders in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. Relevant paragraphs 125 and 126 read as under :-

125. The order or decree of maintenance may be enforced like a decree of a civil court, through the provisions which are available for enforcing a money decree, including civil detention, attachment of property, etc. as provided by various provisions of the CPC, more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 read with Order 21.

126. Striking off the defence of the respondent is an order which ought to be passed in the last resort, if the courts find default to be wilful and contumacious, particularly to a dependent unemployed wife, and minor children. Contempt proceedings for wilful disobedience may be initiated before the appropriate court.

However, taking lenient view and in view of the fact that the appeal has already been admitted and the learned counsel for the appellant is willing to comply the previous orders passed on 22.08.2017, 03.01.2018 and 11.07.2018, further 45 days time is granted to comply the said orders with the direction to deposit atleast 50% of the total amount of interim maintenance regarding which he shall produce the proof before this Court on or before 14-06-2022.

If the appellant fails to comply the direction issued today, this Court shall be constrained to pass adverse order including dismissal of the present appeal.

List on 15.06.2022.

     (SUJOY PAUL)                                       (DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
        JUDGE                                                  JUDGE

ss