SURYAKANT RATILAL OZA Vs. JASHUMATI MANISHANKER TRIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of matrimonial proceedings. The appellant husband and the respondent wife married on 16/06/1962. On 27/03/1964 the wifes brother went to the matrimonial home of the wife who left with him. It appears that she left her matrimonial home with her brother on account of differences of opinion between the two spouses. On 23/07/1964 the husband approached Jyoti Sangh in order to obtain help from it to persuade the wife to return to him. It yielded no result. On 15/08/1965 husband is said to have made another attempt through his friend Mukund to persuade the wife to return to him. That attempt also failed. In April 1967 a third attempt was made which also failed. In August 1970 more than six years after the wife left the husband the husband sent a registered notice to the wife in which he alleged that she had wilfully deserted him. The wife did not reply to that letter. On 8/09/1970 the husband filed against the wife Hindu Marriage Petition No. 75 of 1970 for obtaining judicial separation from her. On 15/01/1971 the wife filed her written statement in that petition in which she inter alia alleged that she had left with the husband ornaments worth about Rs. 5 0 which were given to her by her parents at the time of marriage. Thereafter she did not appear in the further proceedings in that petition. On 3/02/1972 the Court passed in favour of the husband decree for judicial separation. There could not be any reconciliation between the parties for a period of two years. Therefore on 12/03/1974 the husband filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 19 of 1974 for obtaining divorce from the wife. On 26/06/1974 the wife filed in that petition her written statement in which she inter alia claimed permanent alimony and also claimed the return of 15 Tolas of gold ornaments which she alleged that she had left with the husband. On 22/08/1974 the trial Court passed in favour of the husband decree for divorce. The trial Court rejected that wifes claim for permanent alimony and also her claim for return of 15 Tolas of gold ornaments from her husband or its monetary value.

(2.) Against that decree wife appealed to the High Court. It appears that she did not challenge that part of the decree which dissolved the marriage between the parties. In other words she acquiesced in the decree for divorce which the trial Court had passed in favour of the husband. In appeal she contended that the learned trial Judge was in error in refusing to grant her permanent alimony and refusing to order the husband to return to her 15 Tolas of gold ornaments utensils clothes etc. The appeal was heard by a learned single Judge of this Court. He modified the decree passed by the trial Court and ordered the husband to pay to the wife permanent alimony at the rate of Rs. 50.00 per month with effect from 12/03/1974 and also ordered him to return to the wife 10 Tolas of gold ornaments or pay its market price.

(3.) It is that appellate decree which is challenged by the husband in this Letters Patent Appeal.