I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) In spite of the time having been granted to the respondent to comply with -he order of this Court dated April 19, 1982, passed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the respondent has failed to make any payment. His counsel states that he had actually sent a registered letter to the respondent in view of the undertaking recorded in this Court's order dated Dec. 8, 1982 but the said letter has been received back undelivered.
(2.) In view of the above noted factual position and two judgments of this Court in cases Amarjit Kaur Vs. Sohan Singh, 1979 H.L.R 536 and Smt. Surinder Kaur alias Shhindi Vs. Baldev Singh, 1980 H.L.R. 514 , the defence of the respondent has obviously to be struck off I order accordingly.
(3.) In support of her case, that the respondent had been suffering from Tuberculosis and had been maltreating her, the petitioner has examined herself, Chamela Ram (P.W. 1) and her father (P.W. 2) The evidence of these witnesses abundantly establishes that the respondent has been getting treatment from Dr. Krishan Kumar, stated to he a T.B. Specialist for more than two months. Even otherwise there is nothing to disbelieve the statement of the petitioner that during the period she was staying with the respondent, she had been given beatings and physical torture. The evidence of Chamela Ram is wholly independent and trustworthy 1, therefore, accept this evidence of the petitioner and while allowing the appeal grant the decree prayed for in terms of section 13 of the Act. The petitioner is also held entitled to the costs of this litigation which are determined at Rs. 300.00 . Appeal allowed.;