- (1.) HEARD Sri Ritu Raj learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Javed Murtaza appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1.
(2.) THE instant appeal arises against the judgment and order dated 22-12-2001 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. THE brief facts of the case are that a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the respondent No. 1 on 18- 11-1998 praying for a decree of divorce against the appellant and later on one Sri D. D. Shukla was impleaded as opposite party by the order dated 31-7-2000. During the pendency of the proceedings, an application was moved by the appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. On the said application the Principal Judge, Family Court after hearing both the parties at length passed an order on 5-1-2000 awarding an interim maintenance of Rs. 1,000 per month and Rs. 3,000 towards the expenses of the litigation. THE respondent No. 1 initially paid some amount to the appellant but after February 2001 no payment was made, despite repeated applications moved by the appellant and despite orders of the Court dated 30-8-2001 and 27-9-2001. The learned Counsel for the appellant stated that till compliance of the order passed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is made, no further proceedings in the case should have been continued. It was further contended that in this case 7-12-2001 was fixed for evidence and subsequently 11-12-2001, 20- 12-2001, 21-12-2001 and then 22-12-2001 were fixed and on 22-12- 2001 the impugned judgment was pronounced without affording any opportunity to the appellant. The impugned judgment has been passed in a most arbitrary and illegal manner. On behalf of the respondent Sri Javed Murtaza has submitted that there is no illegality in the judgment and order dated 22-12-2001. According to him the appellant was resorting to delaying tactics since the very inception of the proceedings. Several opportunities were afforded to the appellant to adduce evidence but no evidence was adduced by the appellant and the Presiding Officer has no option except to decide the case on the basis of material which was available on record. It was further contended that the appeal preferred by the appellant is incompetent as she, herself made a statement before the Family Court that she is not interested to live with respondent No. 1 and she does not want any compensation.
(3.) WE have considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is not disputed that on the application of the appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, an order was passed on 5-1-2000, awarding an interim maintenance of Rs. 1,000 per month and Rs. 3,000 towards the expenses of the litigation. It is also not disputed that initially respondent No. 1 paid some amount to the appellant but thereafter the same was stopped. At no stage of the proceedings, complete compliance of the order dated 5-1-2000 was made by the respondent No. 1, despite subsequent orders of the Court. It is quite strange that the Presiding Officer continued further proceedings without getting the compliance of the orders passed under Section 24 of the Act which was not only must but also in consonance with the aims and objects of the provisions as enshrined therein. When orders are passed by the Court it is abundant duty of the Court to see that its orders are complied with in letter and spirit and are not being flouted as having been done in the present case.;