IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1770 of 2007 REETA DEVI Versus RAMANAND PRASAD GUPTA ----------- 2. 29.8.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court though the impugned order dated 5.7.2007 in the background of whatever has been taken into account by the court below for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to accept her written statement, is not found to be incorrect, but then when this Court takes into account the allegations in the divorce petition it becomes clear that the matrimonial life of the petitioner from 1994 to 1999 i.e. the date of marriage to the date of birth first child was cordial and the allegation of desertion, only ground for divorce, had emerged in the year 2000. That being so, the petitioner definitely is entitled to contest the suit and the interest of justice would, therefore, require the wife, the weaker of the two, to contest the litigation. In the application that had been filed before the Court below it had been stated that she had no means of income to 2 engage lawyer and/or file written statement. That being so, it cannot be said that the petitioner, the wife had no valid ground for seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement. Today before this Court the counsel for the wife-petitioner, would submit that the petitioner would contest the suit without any further laches on her part. Recording this undertaking of the wife-petitioner this Court would direct that the petitioner should be allowed to contest the suit by acceptance of filing of her written statement and the impugned order passed by the court below is accordingly set aside. It is, however, made clear that as it was the petitioner who had defaulted and/or delayed in disposal of the matrimonial case she will not be entitled to claim any amount of maintenance under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act till the date he written statement is filed and taken on records in terms of order of this Court. It is only after acceptance of her written statement that if an application to this 3 Surendra/ effect is filed by the petitioner under section 24 of the Act the same will be considered in accordance with law. It is further made clear that even any further deliberate default on the part of the petitioner will automatically debar her from the contesting the matrimonial case and in such event the court below will proceed to decide the matter even in absence of the petitioner. With the aforementioned observation and directions this application is allowed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha,J.)