13 <a:-^<y-(K—78 tS' /^» <0' 7^ '•± uti^-:"*^i3JHA4arit^it^flUft SKSiMsafEst.-- 3:eq- ^tW^, ri.Ttiy^ls, fsfc'.iuy sn^r^l^iN ^STT STT^T ?h-Hiqi '^Rirere :gfet sn^i F.A.fM) N|0. 53/2007 Versus Present: Shri N.K.Chatterjee, couii; Shri Malay Kuniar Bhadurt ;19ts Fs Heaiu. 2- The ap: ofthe Family ferrdfl has prel Act, 1984,b '4>i<if<'i4-< tiiircif 'if.fs'A <[qt$i< ^l? siRm an^i Sapaa Kum.ar Devaath, S/o. Late Aml Krislma Devnafh, aged about 3° years, R/o. Behiiid Silicate Factoiy, Heiaunagar, Biiaspur, Tahsil and Distt. Bilaspur Ha'!-''£- Sint. DaMya @ Choudhaiy, -W/o. Shri Sapaa Kuiaar Devnath, aged about 36 years, Through Shri Motilal Choudhan', Bhaisadafai, Haldibadi, Chirmuri, Distt. Ambikapui- (CG) APPBAL UNDER SECTION 19(11 diF THS FAMILY COURT ACT. 19S4 ,J. HON'BLE SHttI T.P.SHARMA.J. ;1 for the apoellaiit-husband. , couiisel fcr the respondent-wife. IGM BNT this appeal under Section 19(1) :iag aggrievsd by fhe orcler passed -HC—78 •s=5^ -^swffiif, ®Tf|y'is,Kt<«iiyy ^ 'w^rr *HI<* sn^v vi K(-(i«b 'cTS?T 3TT^T sh^icb •fr.. sn^f xcssss (^dt^ssw) ?^giw(ii?(T sniw hbs by Judge, Family Court, BilsJ! leamed Judge, FainUy Cotirt appellaat hereiu for dissolutio]|i Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Tht ground fh.at the he has Family Court dated 28..02.20| herein was directed uiider Se< pay Rs. l,000/- per inonfh as[ hereia aild also to pay Rs. 1^< other expeQses of the respond^ 3. The brief facts, leadiai appeUant hereia filed a petiti<| Section 13 (l)(a) offh.e Hiadu cruelty aad desertion. Durui| respoadent herein. filed aii aj Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ^ expeuses. Learaed Judge, 28.02.2007, wtiile disposin^ respondent hereia under 1955, directed fhe appeUant as iiiteriin la.ainteaaace aadl travelmg and oth.er expeuse^ heretn. on each date before fh.c »bi<i(<a<ilf^mw iff^S <i«l(<;l< ^r siRra'aii^r |spur dated 22.6.2007 whereby fhe disi&issed fhe petition fUed by fhe ofinamage under Sectioa 13 ofthe petition has been disniissed on the to coraply wifh tiie order of tlie 37 whereby the petitioner/appellant fion 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to iritermu allowaace to the respondent 00/- on each date for travelmg aad ;nt to appear before fhe Court. ^ to ffle this appeal, are fhat the ^u for dissolutioa of inaiTiage luider Marriage Act, 1955 on the grouiid of |the pendency of fhe said petition, fhe |3pUcation under Section 24 of the br iateriin laaiateiiaace and ofher Faimlv Court vide order dated of the application filed by the 24 of fhe Hiadu Marriage Act, •/-"" ]|ierein to pay Rs. r,0007'e;'per inonth also to pay Rs. 1200/- to her as for appearaace of ffae respondent Fam.Uv Court. Sedtion --—-L_ -nfWUCi&^. XI?HC—7S ^ 3^T "i)|*||^i(, eSi-rflt)'!^, fa<rtiyy 3II^T W R-tt'tl ^sff 3n^?f ai^f<^ w^r IRW (' 'FBnw^if?? sn^w 4. Tbe appellaat hereia d: said order and on 04.04.2007 iaterim inamtenaace and ^d not prefer any appeal against the the he expressed his iaability to pay fhe traveliiig expenses axid ofher expenses is. terms ofthe Cou4t oider dated 28.02.2007 aad further subinitted fhat he does not wlant to pay fhe said amount. Learaed Judge, Famiiy Coiirt observ. justice, one inoi^ opportunity 4^tfc hereia, ce of the luade aa atteinpt to persuacf 28.02.2007 on which he as wifh. the order for paynien^ expenses aad other expense^ traveliiig aiid other expenses| the Couit order dated 28.1 petitioner shaU be disini^ '%Flt?T^T TTF^f ^ffe^ <?»}•<?$« ^sifgion^ 'd that however, in fhe iaterest of |is aUowed to the petitioner/appellaat [order dated 28.02.2007, for makm^ payiaent of iiiterim inaintenajice aud ofher expeuses failing which fhe inam. petition of fhe pe^itioner shall be disinissed and fhe niatterwas fixed for payiuent| of flie inone}' on 22.6.2007. On fhat date, ia. fhe first iastaiice, le^med Judge, Pairuly Court, Bilaspui' .e fhe parties for settleinent of fhe dispute but when she failed (n her atteiapt, leamed Judge asked fhe appeUant hereia for co^npliauce of fhe Court order dated wa. expressed his iaabiUty to coiuply of iateriiu niaintenance, travelius aad said that he does not waat to pay any amoiuit. The Court, p-u-fher observed fhat on 04.04.2007, fhe inatter was adjoum^d oa the condition /that fhe petitioner/ appeUaat herein s^aU pay fhe iutermi xnaiafehance and failing which, for non-comptiance 6f P2.2007, fbe mam petition of the Ised "'and ftu-fher held fhat tl'ie petitioner/appeUant hereia 4as tailed to comply wifh fhe order K K?3SB li^ • -HC—78 .-J T5? •^|A||C)A|, 8>Tfl'M'l<o, Rrtiyy ?BT?:IT»? 3IK?(»11»b Suguna N1*1^11 (h*11ch sn^?T'qasR (1pf^s^i) 'TOiIWtiftd 311^1 regardtag payiaent of iriterim.l and other expenses. Therefor^ dated 04.04.2007 was pieem.^tory aay appeal agaia.st the orde ^-f- the order therefore, for as also of fhe preeniptoiy righfly dismissed the maia p^ do not find aay itlegaMty or in^ are forti&ed iu our ouinion Haryaua High Court readered qii^f^iif ^I1^* ^'felst' <fwi^T< ^siRm sii^a maintenance and traveluig expenses , the petition is disinissed. The order order. Neifher fhe appeUaat filed r dated 28.02.2007 norire-complied tlie drde non-coinpliaiice of the Court order ttie Judge, Family Court has stition filed bv fhe petitioner aiid we irmity in fhe order impugned aad we t>y the judgment of the Punjab & in. Samlesh Verma.Vs. Rain. TilGk 5. The appeal is liable t^ be disnussed and • is accordittgly, dismissed. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge L-.___.