VATSALA Vs. NIRANJAN RAMACHANDRA GULWADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this matter controversy centres round the combined effect of provisions of section 13 (1-A) and section 23(1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

(2.) The facts are simple and few. Appellant (original petitioner) is the wife and respondent is the husband. They were wedded as per Hindu rites; husband filed a petition for the restitution of conjugal rights in terms of section 9 of the Act. It succeeded and ex parte decree against wife was passed on 30th July 1962. That marital life was not restored for more than two years in spite of decree is in admitted position, reasons apart. On 11-2- 966, wife filed a petition for divorce and dissolution of marriage under section 13 (1-A) (ii) p a newly added provision in the Act introduced by Act No. 44 of 1964. Wife's contention is that as in fact, there has been no restitution of conjugal rights for more than two years of the passing of the decree, she is entitled to divorce; whereas husband's defence is that wife cannot take advantage of her own wrong. Former relies on section 13(1-A) whereas latter on section 23(1) (a). The trial Court dissolved the marriage whereas the Appellate Court dismissed the petition Thus, the present second appeal at the behest of a wife

(3.) As considerable reliance is placed on purpose and contents of section 13(1-A), it will be necessary to notice those provisions. This section reads thus :