Ajit Singh Bains, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated Sept. 13, 1974, of the learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Sirsa.
(2.) The appellant was married with the respondent on Feb. 25, 1973, at Sirsa. Thereafter the appellant and the respondent lived as husband and wife at Kot Kapura from Feb. 25, 1973 to May 5, 1973. On May 6, 1973, the appellant brought the respondent to Sirsa and there he also stayed with her parents of the respondent upto May 8, 1973, on which date he went away leaving her there saying that he would not late her back. The respondent than made an application under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for judicial separation before the learned 'Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Sirsa. The main allegations in the application were that the appellant denied the allegation. with cruelty ; that he that he demanded 5,000.00 from the parents of the respondent for the purchase of a motor cycle ; and that she was maltreated by the appellant. The appellant denied these allegations. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed : "1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent as alleged ? 2. Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to try this petition? 3. Relief. The respondent examined five witnesses, namely, Satwant Singh' Jahangir Singh, Ganpat, Ladhu Ram, Balwant Singh, besides herself. The appellant did not lead any evidence as his defence was struck off by the order of the learned trial Court, on March 30, 1974, for not complying with the order of the Court with regard to the maintenance pendente lite, granted to the respondent against the appellant, and it was on the evidence of the respondent alone that the decree for judicial separation under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act was granted in favour of the respondent. It is against this decree that the present appeal ha been filed.
(3.) The appellant has paid the maintenance allowance and the litigation expenses to the respondent today. The order of the learned Subordinate Judge striking off the defence of the appellant seems to be unjustified. The parties had married in the month of Feb., 1973, and the judicial separation proceedings started in the month of June, 1973. It is highly unfortunate that after about four or five months of marriage, the parties broke off, they did not live together and entered into litigation. Since the appellant was not allowed to produce any defence against the evidence produced by the respondent, miscarriage of justice; had taken place. The appellant, as already stated, has paid to the respondent the whole amount of maintenance and litigation expenses today in the Court. In this view of the matter, the appellant is allowed, the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sirsa, dated Sept. 13, 1974 is set aside and the case is remanded for a fresh decision after giving opportunity to the appellant to adduce his evidence in rebuttal, if he wants to do so. The appellant shall continue to pay the same amount of maintenance to the respondent during the pendency of the application under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Subordinate 'Judge, Sirsa, on Aug. 25, 1975. No. order as to costs.;