I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) The learned counsel for the appellant states that since the order of this Court dated 2nd Aug., 1982, whereby the appellant had been granted 150.00 p.m. as maintenance pendente lite and 500/ as litigation expenses under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has remained unsatisfied as not even a single penny has been paid to the appellant by the respondent, his defence should be struck off.
(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to contest this factual stand taken by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the light of the observations of this Court in Amarji Kaur Vs. Sohan Singh, 1979 Punjab Law Reporter 749 , I strike off the defence of the respondent.
(3.) On merits I am of the opinion in the light of her and her brother Bhajan Singh's statements as PW1 and PW2, respectively, and the fact that the allegation of immorality levelled against her has remained unsubstantiated, she is entitled to a decree of divorce as prayed for.;