(1.) LEARNED counsel of the revisionist Smt. Vimla Chauhan is present while none turns up on behalf of the opposite party Sri Yashpal Singh Chauhan.
(2.) IT is to be noted that the revisionist, in the utter violation of the directions of the Court, did not take any step for effecting service upon the respondent. Thus, as per the mandate of Chapter XII Rule 4 of High Court Rules, this revision is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) FIRST Appeal No.46/2008 has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 20.5.2009 after reassessment of the evidence on record. This Division Bench, while concurring with the finding of the lower court, was of the view that Yashpal Singh has not treated his wife with cruelty, and that the husband has not deserted the petitioner (wife), rather it is the petitioner herself who had left the matrimonial home without any sufficient reason. The Division Bench further observed that it is a settled principle of law that the petitioner, for her own wrong, cannot be granted relief of divorce against the respondent.