Arun Kumar v. Neha Bansal And ANR
!"#$%"&'('#)* + ,+
-.)/.0 - +++"!'!'#)"-( 1(+ "2 )( 3 )% )#!2"- +++"(4#)%")!
* 56+7 7
7 8+ 6
!
"
#$
$
% & ' (
)*
#
#
0
3 3+ 5,& ' (3 3 )*
#
0+6 %5 % %
7
0 0$ 0
7 + +
0
$# 39 0"
: ,%%%;/ +
+
%& %- % - /&*
: %%%;/ +
% % - . %< % % - .
+ =/
>
8 9
> + 7
+
=/
0
& 4 0 inter alia, 00
0# )
? ) 0
+"
. 0+ ) / .
0
+
0 $
"
0 +
#
- @
0
%< % % - /-* # 00"
0 .
0
0 0
. #
0
0
# < +
#
>
#
"
0 # + +
>
$ #
7 0#0
> "
0 , 0 "
'&* 0
# "+ # "#
+ "#
-
#
0 0
"
+
00
+ +0
# + .
+ 00
7 +0"+ + # "
0
+
"
0
'&*
06 ## " ) +0
+
0# +0"
00
$
"+
!
7 +0
0# "
0"
0 "
+
0$ $# 0# +
$ ?
$# # > 0
00 B!
!
# $ # % & " # & $#
9
#
% '# #% $ %
# &
# !
#% $ % &# $
&" !%
. It would, thus, be appropriate even in the absence of any specific provision to that effect in the Act, to strike off the defence of the erring spouse in exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 21 of the Act rather than to leave the aggrieved party to seek its enforcement through execution as execution is a long and arduous procedure. Needless to say, the remedy under Section 28A of the Act regarding execution of decree or interim order does not stand obliterated or extinguished by striking off the defence of the defaulting spouse. Thus, where the spouse who is directed to pay the maintenance and litigation expenses, the legal consequences for its non(payment are that the defence of the said spouse is liable to be struck off." '+
* 0"
# 7)
+ (
)
0
> #+ *
"
+ , -
# 00"
0 $
# #
"
0
> 0"
0## :0 #
0
0 > #+
.
+
% /0 112 .34 -5. @
? ?0 7# %
6 % /0 - 7 # . 0#
0
00
#0# 0 "
%
" 0"
$
00 00"
# # 0
0"
0$ 0
+
>
#
#
$
%- %5 % - 0 .
0 0
00
0
0 0 0"
> #0" 00# + @
%- %5 % - #
#
@ 0
$
+
# & 00 # +00
0 '*
"
0 :7 ;
%< %! % - vishnu = $#; C;
=
C;