1 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:27836 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO(FC) No.34 of 2024 Date of Decision: 14.08.2025 _____________________________________________________ Bittu Ram ....Appellant Versus Indra Kumari …Respondent ___________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________ For the appellant : Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Alok Ranjan Sood, Advocate. ________________________________________________ Vivek Singh Thakur , Judge (Oral) This appeal has been preferred against ex-parte judgment and decree dated 22.04.2024, passed in case HMA Registration No.182 of 2022, by Additional Principal Judge (Additional District Judge), Family Court, Chamba, District Chamba, HP, whereby marriage between the parties has been dissolved by decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 2. After service of the appellant, he appeared before the Family Court on 19.11.2022, but thereafter he did not appear on 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:27836 ) 24.12.2022 and on subsequent dates thereafter, during 2023 and 2024, fixed for adjudication of the petition preferred by the respondent. Finally impugned ex-parte decree of divorce has been passed, dissolving the marriage. 3. Today, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant belongs to a very poor family and he is an unemployed person, belonging to BPL family and, therefore, during pendency of matter before Family Court, he had applied for appointment of Legal Aid Counsel and thus he could not contest the matter before Family Court. 4. From the documents produced by learned counsel for appellant, it is apparent that one Shri Chaman, Advocate, practicing in Sub Divisional Court, Tissa was appointed as a Legal Aid Counsel and information in this regard was communicated to the appellant, vide letter dated 12.01.2023. There is nothing on record or otherwise placed before us as to what happened thereafter and why the appellant did not pursue the matter through the counsel provided to him through Legal Aid. The Legal Aid Counsel was appointed in January, 2023, whereas, impugned decree of divorce has been passed on 22.04.2024, i.e. about 1½ years after the appointment of the counsel as Legal Aid Counsel. It is not the case of appellant that 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:27836 ) he had approached the Legal Aid Counsel, but despite approaching and imparting instructions, Legal Aid Counsel did not contest the case. There is no reason to explain that why appellant did not attend the Court after appearing once on 19.11.2022. Once appellant acquired the knowledge of filing of petition by respondent and appeared in this Court, then it was duty of appellant to take necessary action to ensure his representation. 5. The allegations leveled by the respondent to dissolve the marriage are that appellant used to give her beatings off and on under the influence of liquor and Bhang without any reason or cause. He had started her depriving from maintenance and other basic necessities of life and after giving beatings, he used to turn her out from the house with threat that in case she would come back, she would face dire consequences. 6. During pendency of present appeal, respondent has filed an application, being CMP No.8530 of 2025, for awarding maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. 7. In response to the application, appellant has submitted that he, being a disabled, unemployed and ailing person, is not capable of bearing the cost of maintenance of the 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:27836 ) respondent as he does not have any means to survive and maintain even himself and also to bear his medical expenses. 8. Reply filed to the application substantiates the plea of the respondent that appellant was depriving the respondent from basic amenities and necessities as well as maintenance and had deserted her, leaving her helpless. 9. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, even if willful absence of the appellant before the Family Court is ignored, despite contrary stand taken in the appeal, for the response filed to the application, it is apparent that appellant is either not able to maintain respondent-wife or not interested to provide her basic necessities much less maintenance and, therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications (CMPs No.17598 of 2024 & 8530 of 2025) are disposed of, being infructuous. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Sushil Kukreja) August 14, 2025 Judge (V.Himalvi)