1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4055 OF 2008 Bikramjeet Singh Karnail Singh Auluck Vs. Papiya @ Simran Bikramjeet Singh Auluck Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri A. M. Quazi Adv. for petitioner. Shri J. M. Gandhi Adv. for respondents. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 20 th APRIL, 2009. This Writ Petition is filed by original petitioner who has instituted divorce proceedings against the wife- respondent. 2. After the respondent appeared in the petition for divorce she moved an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of interim maintenance as well as cost of litigation. The Court passed an order granting maintenance of Rs. 3000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 1000/-. After this order came to be passed 2 the petitioner moved an application for review of this order. Review application came to be dismissed. In the meanwhile respondent No.1 filed an application purporting to be an application under Order 39 Rule 1 for striking out the defence of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner has not complied with the order. Court passed an order on the said application immediately after application for review was dismissed and allowed application for striking out defence of the petitioner and being aggrieved by the said order this Writ Petition is preferred. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as order for review is concerned petitioner does not intend to challenge the said order. I, therefore, need not consider the legality or otherwise of the said order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- in the Court towards arrears of maintenance and nothing is due against the petitioner now. He submits that it would, therefore, be in the fitness of the circumstances to allow the petitioner to prosecute his petition on merits. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that amount has been deposited after a long gap of time and therefore the Court 3 should impose heavy costs on the petitioner if at all the order striking out the defence is to be set aside. 5. Every matter in fact needs to be decided on merits and it would therefore in the interest of justice to allow the petitioner to contest the petition on merits particularly on account of the fact that petitioner has deposited entire arrears in Court and gives an assurance that he would continue to deposit the said amount in the Court regularly. 6. In view of this submission order passed on 17.01.2007 on Ex. 42 is set aside. Petitioner is allowed to prosecute the petition on merits. Order is set aside on the condition that the petitioner pays to the respondent costs of Rs. 5000/- to be paid in two weeks. The petition being under Hindu Marriage Act, shall be disposed of as early as possible and in any case within a period of 6 months. JUDGE svk 4 5 6