IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 34 of 2008. [O&M] Date of Decision: 4th August, 2009. Rakesh Bhalla Petitioner through Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate Versus Krishna Devi Respondent through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 15.9.2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing the petitioner's objections filed under Order 21, Rule 11 CPC. The respondent – wife filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the petitioner – husband. She also moved an application for maintenance pendente- lite which was granted to her @ Rs.2500/- per month vide order dated 02.12.2005. In the divorce petition, the petitioner – husband was proceeded against ex-parte on 17.3.2006. In the normal course, the petition could have been decided soon thereafter but it was adjourned on more than one occasion at the request of the wife and was finally dismissed in default on 3.4.2007. Meanwhile, the respondent – wife filed an execution application for recovery of the arrears of maintenance pendente-lite. One of the objection raised by the petitioner – husband was that he was liable to pay interim maintenance till 17.3.2006 when he was proceeded against ex-parte. The wife, however, claimed the said arrears till her petition was dismissed in default on 3.4.2007. The petitioner's aforesaid objection has been turned down by the learned District Judge vide the impugned order dated 15.9.2007. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the respondent. The matter was taken up yesterday also but none appeared on her behalf. The petitioner's grievance is that neither the respondent -wife wants to live with him nor does she want to divorce him. It is for this reason that she did not pursue the divorce petition and allowed the same to be dismissed in default. Be that as it may, the petitioner's contention that the respondent – wife kept on prolonging the ex-parte divorce proceedings in order to extract interim maintenance from him or that she had no intention to obtain the decree of divorce as is apparent from the fact that she never applied for restoration of her petition dismissed in default, are the factual issues which can be effectively decided by the learned District Judge only. Consequently, and for the reasons afore-stated, this revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 15.9.2007 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned District Judge, Chandigarh to decide the petitioner's objections afresh and in accordance with law after notice to the respondent-wife. August 04, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE