HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PIRST APPBAL (Misc.l. Wp. 42 pf 2010 Vs. APPEAL UNDBR SECTIQN 19 OF THB FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 ORDBR (ORALt (08.03.2011) Per I.M. QUDDUSI, J. 1. AppeUaat appears ia person. Despite ser^ice of notice by paper pubUcation no one appears on behalf of tiie respondent even when the matter is taken up today m fhe revised list. 2. Heard. 3. This appeal has been filed agamst fhe impugned order dated 04.03.2010 passed by fhe Second Principle Judge, FamUy Court, Durg ia Case No.53-A/2009 dismissiag fhe counter claiin of fhe appellant. 4. Brief facts of the case are that fhe respoudent wife had fUed a petition for divorce u/s 13 offhe Hitidu Mardage Act, 1955 agaiast fhe appeUaat who is her husbaad, The appeUaat also filed a counter clauii before fhe court. The divorce petition filed by fhe respondent wife was dismissed on 24.10.2007. However, the counter clami was entertamed aad reiaaiaed pendiag but the Coiirt has unposed Utigation expenses on fhe appeUant vide order dated 24.07.2009, accordiag which, fhe appeUant had to pay Rs. 10.000/- as Utigation expenses. An appUcation u/s 151 of fhe Code of Civil Procedure was also filed by which he has informed fhe court Uiat he is ready to pay fhe saine ia two iastalraents APPBLLANT Tapaa Kumar Ghoshal, son of Late Shri H.P,Goshal, aged about 64 years, resident of D-8, Sector 4, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G). RBSPONDENT8 Smt. Monika Ghoshal, wtfe ofTapaa Kumar Ghoshal, aged about 53 years, rcsident of M.I.G. 11-318, Amdi Nagar, HUDCO, Bhilai (C.G). ^e"^^ % ^' aad he inay be aUowed to pay Rs.5000/- imiiiediately aad for the reiaamuig aaiount, 3 inonths thne be granted but fhe said prayer was ignored by the Court. Thereafter, fhat order was not chaUenged by fhe appeUaat before any ofher Court. However fhe appeUaat who is present ia person has submitted fhat he has challenged fhat order before fhis Court ia fhis appeal. 5. In fact, fhis appeal has been filed agamst fhe impugned order dated 04.03.2010 disiaissiag fhe counter claim for non-depositing offhe amount ofUtigation expenses, 6. We do not fiad any substaace to iaterfere in the order dated 24.07.2009 by which the Utigation expenses were directed to be paid to respondent wife of fhe appeUaat. After all a lady is entiUed to get Utigation expenses wifhout which how caa it be possible for her to raeet out fhe cost of Utigation, fherefore, fhe court was right ia jBxiag Utigation expenses aad fhe appeUaat was required to obey the said order. Due to disobedience of fhe order it wUl be presuined for aU purposes fhat fhe wife respondent wiU not get a chaace to defend her case aiid as such aa ex-parte order was not possible. 7. In view of fhe above, we are of fhe opiaion fhat one miore opportunity be graated to fhe appeUaat to deposit fhe Utigation expenses. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order dated 04.03.2010 aad remit ffae niatter to fhe Faauly Court conceraed. The coiinter claim shall be restored to its origiiial nuinber aad the appeUaat shaU deposit fhe Utigation expenses that is Rs. 10000/ - wifhia a monfh. Thereafter, fhe process to issue notice to the respondent wife shall be started ia accordaace wifh law aad the counter clami be decided on its own raerit. 8o In fhe result, this appeal is allowed in part, No order as to costs. ^^ Rao Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge