KULDEEP SAXENA Vs. PREETI SAXENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29-1 -1998 whereby the main tenance was allowed to wife and daughter of the revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the mutual divorce suit was filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and a com promise took place in that suit and all the articles of marriage given by the wife side were returned and it was decided that no party shall have any right against other including maintenance. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that on several blank papers her signatures were obtained. It is stated that even if mutual divorce decree was passed, the papers otherwise signed shall not be taken into consideration unless and until the said compromise was made part of the decree of the proceeding under Section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned lower Court has discussed this point and had held that in the absence of any order of the said Court, the maintenance could not be refused to the wife on the ground that she had been divorced. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that the mutual decree itself shows that the wife was residing separately on her own free will. Again I am however, not convinced with this contention because there is al legation of harassment and torture and there was other allegation also and if the parties could not live as husband and wife, divorce decree could be obtained jointly that does not mean that there was no suffi cient ground for wife to reside separately nor it can be held that with her own free will the wife was residing separately. I perused the order under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has mention that the property has been returned but it was not mentioned that there was any com promise between the parties that the wife shall not claim maintenance. Again the list of the articles which were returned were mentioned in a paper. Again in that paper it was not mentioned that the wife shall no t be entitled for maintenance. Therefore, the learned lower Court committed no illegality in allowing the maintenance and there is no force in the revision, it is hereby rejected. Revision dismissed. .