ARUNA GORDON Vs. G V GORDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.12.1998 passed bythe Additional District Judge, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner underOrder 14, Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code praying that the burden of proving issue No. 1 should beshifted to the respondent herein.

(2.) A petition was filed by the respondent under Section 32 of the Indian DivorceAct, seeking for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. The aforesaid petition wascontested by the petitioner herein and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, thefollowing issues were framed :-

(3.) Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid order passedby the Additional District Judge is contrary to the statutory provisions of the IndianDivorce Act and the Indian Evidence Act and-accordingly the same is liable to be setaside. He further submitted that the explanation as appended to Section 9 of theHindu Marriage Act was brought in the said Act in the year 1976 and similaramendments were also made even .in the Special Marriage Act, but the Legislaturethought it fit not to put the burden of proving reasonable excuse on the person whohad withdrawn from the society, under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, andtherefore, the aforesaid explanation could not have been held to be a guiding factor incoming to the conclusion in the present case also. In support of his contention he alsorelied upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Smt. Jyothi Pa/Vs. P.N.Pratap Kumar Pai; reported in AIR 1987 Karnataka 24-