SHREEVASTAVA Vs. VEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER .

(2.) THIS Letters Patent appeal arises in the following circumstances. The respondent Smt. Veena Shreevastava filed an application under section 47 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code in the Court of the learned District Judge, Delhi and claimed therein that the decree for resittution of conjugal rights passed in favour of her husband Dr. M. P. Shreevastava had been satisfied and a finding be recorded to that effect. She alleged in her application that in May 1961 she came to know that her husband had obtained an ex-parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights and since she had always been ready and willing to live with him as his wife took this opportunity for going back to her husband and living with him as his wife. She accordingly went to the house of her husband in Delhi on 25th of May 1961 but her husband was not present in the house. She waited for him and when he came back she greeted him but there was no response from her husband who immediately left the house and did not return for about two hours. She then left the house and went back to Calcutta with her father who had accompanied her to her husband's house.She also wrote two letters on the 6th of June 1961 and 16th of June 1961 under registered cover requesting her husband to allow her to live with him but the husband did not even take delivery of the letters, Accoding to her some attempts made by friends to persuade her husband to take her back as wife also failed. Smt. Veena Shreevastava, therefore, contented that she had done all that she was required to do to mcarry out the directions given by the decree for restitution of conjugal rights and her husband should now be held to be debarred from claiming that there had been no satisfaction of the ex-parte decree obtained by him for restitution of conjugal rights. One of the objections taken by the husband was that the application was not maintainable because the petitioner did not allege actual satisfaction of the decree and the application had not been made with the genuine desire by the applicant to live with the respondent. On pleadings of the parties the following two issues were framed--