V SREEDEVI Vs. V VARADARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal pertains to a decree of divorce passed in between the appellant v. Sreedevi and V. Varadarajan. They were married on 4-6-1971 at Secunderabad. Both of them are Hindus. V. Varadarajan filed H.M.O.P.No. 737 of 1992 for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion against the present appellant V. Sreedevi. That petition was allowed in part on 28-1-1992 wherein the husband was granted a decree for judicial separation. The said decree for judicial separation remained in force as it was not appealed against and the husband Varadarajan thus filed a further petition for a decree of divorce, which was registered as F.C.O.P.938 of 1993. This was on the ground that the decree for judicial separation passed on 28-1-1992 had remained in force for one year therefore under Sec. 13 (1-A) the husband was entitled to the decree of divorce. The wife/appellant herein opposed this petition on various grounds alleging that it was the petitioner who was guilty of misbehaviour and that he had developed illicit relationship with one Dhanalakshmi and was ill-treating his wife. It was alleged that it was with the idea to give legal status to Dhanalakshmi that the present petition for divorce was filed by the husband.

(2.) Learned Trial Court did not accept the defence of the wife and proceeded to pass the decree of divorce, on the ground that the husband had become entitled to the same under Sec. 13(1-A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, as the decree for judicial separation between them, which was obtained by the husband himself had remained in force for more than one year.

(3.) It is this decree which is being challenged before us. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant wife has forcefully argued that in fact the husband was himself guilty of living in illegal intimacy with Dhanalakshmi and it was because of that the wife though she could have joined the company of the husband did not do so. In short, learned counsel contended that the husband in presenting a petition under Sec. 13 (1A) was taking advantage of his own wrong as contemplated under Sec. 23 (1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore, the trial Court should not have awarded the decree of divorce in his favour. Learned counsel also submits that since the decree earlier passed against her was only for judicial separation and not for divorce as prayed by the husband in fact, the wife could have joined the company of the husband in time and she did not do so because of the wavered behaviour on the part of the husband and therefore, the husband should not be allowed to take advantage of his wayward behaviour which prevented the wife joining his company.