Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9th of December, 2000, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, dissolving the marriage of the respondent/wife with the appellant/husband on the ground of cruelty.

2. The order under appeal also inter-alia directed in para No. 7 as follows :

On an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the), it was ordered that the respondent (the appellant) shall pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards costs of litigation and Rs. 1,500/- p.m. towards maintenance pendente lite to the petitioner (respondent) from the date of her application. The said orders were not complied with by the respondent. Hence, his defence was struck off vide order dated 30.10.2000. However, he was permitted to demolish the case of the petitioner by way of cross-examining her.

3. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant herein while impugning the impugned order of dissolution has not paid any maintenance to the respondent since the time the order of maintenance was passed in her favour by the Trial Court. Incidentally the defence of the appellant was also struck off on 13th of October, 2000 for failure to pay the maintenance.

4. The fact that the defence of the appellant stood struck off in the Trial Court shows that he has not defence to the respondents claim and can only seek to demolish the respondents case by cross-examination. The appellant has not shown that the order dated 30.10..2000, directing the defence of the appellant to be struck off was ever set aside by any superior Court.

5. The learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgments in Smt. Swarno Devi v. Shri Piara Ram, 1975 HLR 15 (P&H) and Smt. Parkasho v. Lachman Singh, 1977 HLR 334 (P&H) to contend that the defence can be struck off for failure to pay the maintenance. He has also relied upon the judgments in Bani v. Parkash Singh, I (1997) DMC 5 [LQ/PunjHC/1996/57] =AIR 1996 P and H 175 and Ghasiram Das v. Smt. Arundhati Das and Another, 1994 (1) HLR 545 (Orissa) to contend that even the appeal can be dismissed for non-payment of maintenance. The appellant was asked by this Court through his Counsel and himself even today whether he is in a position to pay the maintenance and whether he wants further extension of time to make the payment of maintenance and even a fraction of maintenance. The appellant has refused to commit himself and has declined to make any payment. The appellant also could not amicably settle the whole dispute even though opportunity was granted on 17.5.2001 to the parties for this purpose. On merits I find that the principles for striking out defence for non-compliance of orders for payment of maintenance underlying the above judgments are to be found in para 7 of Bani v. Parkash Singh (supra) which reads as under :

No doubt, wife can file a petition under Order 21 Rule 37, CPC for the recovery of this amount and the husband can be hauled up under the Contempt of Courts also for disobedience of the aforesaid Courts order, but Section 24 of theempowers that Matrimonial Court to make an order for expenses of proceedings to a needy and indigent spouse. If this amount is not made available to the applicant then the object and purpose of this provision stand defeated. Wife cannot be forced to take time-consuming execution proceedings for realising this amount. The conduct of the respondent-husband amounts to contumacy. Law is not that powerless as to not to bring the husband to book. If the husband has failed to make the payment of maintenance and litigation expenses to the wife, his defence can be struck out. No doubt, in this appeal he is respondent. His defence is contained in his petition filed under Section 13 of the. In a plethora of decisions of this Court Smt. Swarno Devi v. Piara Ram, (supra); Gurdev Kaur v. Dalip Singh, 1980 Hindu LR 240; Smt. Surinder Kaur v. Baldev Singh, 1980 Hindu LR 514; Sheela Devi v. Madan Lal, 1981 Hindu LR 126 and Sumarti Devi v. Jai Prakash, 1985 (1) Hindu LR 84, it is held that when the husband fails to pay maintenance and litigation expenses to the wife, his defence is to be struck out. The consequence is that the appeal is to be allowed and his petition under Section 13 of theis to be dismissed.

6. Similarly, in Ghasiram Das (supra) it is held as follows :

It is no doubt correct that the order directing payment of interim maintenance can be enforced by taking recourse to an execution proceeding, but the aforesaid provision enabling the party to file an execution proceeding does not preclude the Court to enforce its own order in order to prevent abuse of the process of Court. An indigent spouse who is financially handicapped to place materials before the Court and to fight out the litigation in which the order was passed cannot be expected to initiate another legal proceeding and realise her dues.

The next alternative by which the Courts may enforce the order is to strike out the pleadings of the defaulting party. Whether it will be permissible in law for taking such a course requires consideration. The Delhi High Court in a decision reported in AIR 1976 Delhi 246 : 1977 All India Hindu Law Reporter 35 (Delhi), Smt. Anuradha v. Santosh Nath Khanna has observed that it is open to the Court to enforce obedience of its order or to prevent abuse of its process by staying the proceedings or striking off the defence or by temporarily suspending its operation without prejudice to any other action that may be taken according to law. The phrase striking of the defence, would be applicable where the defendant is the defaulting party and where the plaintiff is the defaulter it naturally follows that his pleading can also be struck down for non-compliance of the order.

Thus the Orissa High Court has applied the position of law laid down by the decisions relied upon by the respondent to hold that even the pleadings of a plaintiff can be struck off for non-compliance. Since I am in respectful agreement with the view of Orissa High Court, I see no difficulty in extending the analogy of striking off plaintiffs pleading to even an appeal. Consequently the appeal is liable to be dismissed in view of non-payment of maintenance to the respondent/wife.

7. In this view of the matter, the appellant not having paid the maintenance, the appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs.