r WOHCQURTOFCHHArTiSGARIlATaL^BM Division Bench: Appetlant/ Non appellant before the EaniilvJSourt Respondenff Applicant before the Family Court Vs. Hon'ble Shri Justice Dhirendra Nftishra & Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar lyiishra. F.A. M. No. 07/2010 Shirish Kumar Wianctelwal S/o. Shri Bharat P. Khandelwal Aged about 26, R/o. Near Gee Market, Main Road Sahada, Post Sahada DistriGt Nandurvwtf Maharashtra Subha Khanddwal, W/o. Shri SNrish Kumar Khandelwal, Aged about 23 yeare, Present Address Cemenk House dd Motor Stand Rajnandgaon, Post and District Rajnandgaon (C.^3.) Present: Shri H.B. Agrawai, Sr. Advocate with Shri K.S. Pawar, eounsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent. ORAL ORDER (13^4^01^ > 1. The a(^>ellant/husband being aggrieved bythe order ofthe Famify Court, Rajnandgaon, dated 16th December, 2009, has preferred thte appeal under Section 19(1) of the Famity Court Act, as by the impugned ordw, the defence ofthe appeltent/non-applteant, in theapplicatton fited underSectton 13 ofthe Hindu Marriage Act bythe respondent/wife, has been stnick off on the ground of non-payment of Interim maintenance awarded hi favour of the wife under Sectton 24 ofthe Hindu Mamage Act. 2. From the office note it appears that the notice has Iwen served on the respondent on 28th January, 2010, however, norejM'esentationwasmade on behatf ofthe respondent. 3. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Shri K.S. Pawar, teamed counsel for the appeltant submit that the Family Court has been duty apprised by the appellant/husband regarding pendency ofthe appeal and th®mattor is stiM pending before the Family Court. Learned counsel for the appeltemt further subrptt that the appellant has ah-eady deposited the entire amount of .:^;-sea'^^. ^-^, ^ ^^ y maintenance perxtente lite and sum of Rs.11,000/- has been de|>osited hi the CCD of the Court below after seeking permissk>n from the concerned Famity court on 06.02.2010 and ttie copy of the reeeipt teas already been fited in this Court. Taking into consideratKm that the defence of ttie husband has baen ttructt off onty on the grounct of non-payment of maintenance peoctento /te and consktering that since then the husband has ctoposited the errtire sum payable to the wife in the Family Court, w®are of the opinion (bat in the interest of justtee the appellant shoutel ateo beafforded anopportunityto defend the diwrce petitton instituted by the v^fe. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, subject to the conditwn at the appellant shall pay any sum that is due tothe respondent/wife latest by20pl April, 2010 and theroafter continues to pay the same regularfy. Since the order has been passed wtthout hearing the n^aondent, W9 reserve the Uberty to the respondent to approach this Court, if aggrteved. Sd/- ^irendra Mishra Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Birt