Vircndra Saran, J. - (1.) SATYA Narain has filed this writ petition against Order dated 4.3.1994, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Agra, granting Rs. 250/- per month to respondent No. 2 Asha Devi as interim maintenance.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there has been an ex parte decree of divorce against respondent No. 2 Asha Devi. A copy of the judgment passed in divorce proceedings dated 24.4.1993 has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since there is a decree of divorce against respondent No. 2 Asha Devi, she cannot be allowed interim maintenance. I have gone through the copy of judgment of Sri J. D. Kapoor, Additional District Judge, Delhi, in the divorce: suit which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It appears that initially Asha Devi had put in appearance in the suit filed against her at Delhi but later on she did not contest the suit and the suit proceeded in her absence and was decreed ex parte. The learned Additional District Judge has held on the basis of ex parte evidence that Asha Devi has abandoned the matrimonial home: to break in the marital knot and did not return. He further held that she lived with the petitioner for a period of one month and the marriage was not consummated. On the above findings ex parte decree for divorce was granted. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the above findings, the wife has no claim for interim maintenance. I am afraid that the argument is not well founded. As mentioned earlier, the suit has been decided ex parte. It may be mentioned here that respondent No. 2 Asha Devi is a resident of Agra but the divorce suit was filed at Delhi. Perhaps the wife could not defend the suit as she had to run to and from Agra to Delhi. Needless to say that it no easy task for a lone woman to contest a case at Delhi where the cost of stay is touching the sky and counsel's fee are beyond means of a common man. Moreover Smt. Asha Devi had no source of income of her own and in these circumstances she might have found it impossible to contest the suit at Delhi.
(3.) SO far as the granting of interim maintenance is concerned it appears that husband cannot shirk this responsibility. The word wife includes a wife who has been divorced by or has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried. Thus the wife is entitled to receive maintenance from the husband regardless of the fact that she has been divorced by or has obtained a divorce from her husband. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that he is willing to keep respondent No. 2 Asha Devi with him. Now since a decree of divorce exists there is no question of keeping the wife by the husband and consummating the marriage after the decree of divorce. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the case of Smt. Mehtab Begum v. Ansar Ahmad, 1986 ACC page 293, in which B. D. Agrawal, J. has held that if there is a decree of restitution of conjugal rites and certain findings are recorded and as the wife has withdrawn from the society of the husband without reasonable excuse, she cannot be granted maintenance. Speaking for myself, I am unable to subscribe to the view of law expressed by B. D. Agrawal, J. in the case of Mehtab Begum (supra) but it is not necessary to refer the matter to a larger Bench as the facts of the present case are quite distinguishable. In the present case there is no decree of restitution cf conjugal rites but there is a decree of divorce. After a decree of divorce there is no question of asking the wife to join and live with her husband who has divorced her and hence the view expressed by B. D. Agrawal, J. in the case of Mehtab Begum, (supra) is not applicable to the present case. There is no other infirmity in the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Agra dated 4.3.1994. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.;