IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 86 of 2011 Date of decision: 26.05.2011 Neelam Kumari Sharma …. Petitioner Versus Suman Kumar Sharma … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. M.L. Brakta, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. M.S. Thakur, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the respondent in the case pending before the learned District Judge (Forest), trying the case under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed by the respondent as against the present petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.2.2011 passed by the learned trial Court closing the evidence of the petitioner. 2. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondent and record of the case was called for. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that since the respondent had not paid the interim maintenance to the petitioner, who is a woman, could not arrange the money to appear in Court. This has been disputed by the learned 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 counsel for the respondent who submitted that maintenance amount of ` 15000/- was paid by the respondent during the pendency of the case. There is nothing on record to substantiate the plea of the petitioner that the maintenance upto date was not paid. In view of the fact that the amount was paid in lump sum by the respondent, it suggests that the amount was not being paid regularly by the respondent. A perusal of the record shows that sufficient opportunities numbering four were given to the petitioner to lead her evidence and last opportunity was granted subject to ` 300/- as costs, which has also not been paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only the respondent is to be examined and prays for one opportunity to produce the respondent. 5. In view of the circumstances of the case and the fact that only the respondent is to be examined, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner shall be permitted to lead evidence subject to ` 300/- as costs to be paid to the respondent. The amount shall be paid before examination of the witness. One opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to appear in the witness box and make statement before the learned trial Court. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to put up their appearance before the learned trial Court on 20th June, 2011. A copy of the order alongwith record be sent to the learned trial Court for information and necessary compliance. 6. In view of the disposal of the main petition, all the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Interim order shall also stand vacated. ( V.K. Ahuja ), May 26, 2011 Judge (BSS) 3 4