HEM CHANDER MISRA Vs. SATYA MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is directed against the judgment and decree dated Sept. 4, 1985 of the Court of Shri K.S. Gupta, Addl. District Judge dismissing a petition under Sec. 13(i)(ia) and (ib) of the said Act.

(2.) The marriage between the parties was solemnized on May 28, 1966 at Delhi. The parties lived at Delhi as husband & wife. There was a separation between the parties on Jan. 22, 1967. A son was born out of the lawful wedlock on March 8, 1967. The appellant filed a petition under Sec. 10 of the said Act on or about May 31, 1969 of judicial separation. The ground was that the respondent had deserted the appellant for a continuous period of over two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. The petition was contested by the respondent. The respondent also filed a suit for the restoration of her dowry or its price subsequent to the filing of the petition by the appellant for judicial separation. Both the cases were pending in April, 1971.

(3.) It is the common case of the parties that during the pendency of the two cases, there were some reconciliatory moves between the parties. According to the appellant, it was decided that the parties would withdraw their cases against each other and live amicably. According to the respondent there was a talk between the parties for reconciliation but it was decided at that time that the suit for the return of the dowry would be withdrawn after some time subject to the appellant treating the respondent with due respect and dignity. The fact remains that the appellants's father, as previously agreed upon, wrote a letter on April 29, 1971, Ex. R-1 to the respondent's father that the appellant accompanied by his father and two near relatives would be coming to the respondent's father on Sunday on May 2, 1971 to bring back the respondent. The respondent's father was requested to graciously confirm the appointment by return post. In para 9 of the petition, it is stated that the respondents's father wrote a letter on April 30, 1971 and invited the appellant and his parents to their house and requested them to take away the respondent on May 2, 1971 in the evening. This is admitted in the corresponding paragraph of the written statement. The appellant along with his parents went to the respondent's house and brought back the respondent on May 2, 1971.