IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.745 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: December 2, 2009. Smt. Ram Bai ...Petitioner(s) v. Sohan Lal ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri Lalit Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): As per the averments made in this petition, vide judgment dated 9.9.2004, a decree of divorce was passed in favour of the respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal challenging the aforesaid decree by filing FAO No.241-M of 2004. It is the further case of the petitioner that vide order dated 27.8.2008, the amount of maintenance pendente lite was enhanced and the respondent was directed to pay the arrears of maintenance in one month. However, the respondent has failed to make the payment in terms of the aforesaid order and, therefore, he is liable to be punished. Notice to show cause was issued to the respondent vide order dated 21.4.2009, however, till date, the petitioner has failed to serve the respondent despite many opportunities. Even the petitioner was granted an opportunity to serve the respondent through his counsel who is representing him in FAO No.241-M of 2004. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has failed to serve the respondent and the petitioner has an effective remedy of moving an appropriate application in the aforesaid appeal for striking off the defence/recovery of arrears, etc., I am not inclined to proceed further in this petition. Rule discharged. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek any other appropriate remedy including recovery of the arrears of maintenance pendente lite in accordance with law. Disposed of. December 2 , 2009. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge