UMA MITTAL Vs. ARVIND MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT/defendant has filed this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment and decree dated 4. 8. 2000 passed in Hindu Marriage Case No. 23/99 by the learned IXth Additional District Judge, Indore of dissolving the marriage under Section 13 (1-a) (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(2.) ADMITTED facts of the case are that the marriage in between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized at Indore according to the Hindu rites and customs on 22. 5. 1991 and from the wedlock they have a daughter, who born on 26. 5. 1992. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has filed Case No. 389/92 for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty and the Supreme Court has transferred this case to the Family Court at Amritsar and the suit was dismissed in default of appearance of the respondent/petitioner. It is also the common ground that the respondent/petitioner has filed the Case No. 193/97 for restitution of conjugal rights and an ex parts decree was passed on 9. 1. 1998 in favour of the respondent/petitioner. That after passing of the ex parte order dated 9. 1. 1998 the application for execution of the decree was filed by the respondent/petitioner and in that case the appellant has appeared and, thereafter, she has filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13, C. P. C. to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 9. 1. 1998. It is also the common ground that the application filed by the appellant/defendant under Order 9 Rule 13, C. P. C. was dismissed. That the appellant/defendant has filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. for her maintenance and the maintenance of her daughter and the amount of Rs. 900-p. m. was provided to the appellant/defendant.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner is that after passing of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in Case No. 193/97 on 9. 1. 1998 the appellant/defendant has not resumed the relationship even after one year of the passing of the impugned decree dated 9. 1. 1998, although the application of the execution was filed by the petitioner for directing the appellant/ defendant to resume the relationship. That the decree of dissolution of marriage be passed in favour of the petitioner under Section 13 (1-a) (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act.