PURNIMA Vs. SANJEEV SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendant wife against whom a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty has been passed by the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 4.2.1987 in pursuance to its order to proceed with the case under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, passed on 19.12.1986.

(2.) It is not disputed that the parties were married at Gwalior on 27.11.1982. A female child was born out of this wedlock at Nagpur on 22.9.1983. However, it appears that differences arose between the parties sometimes in 1984 which led the respondent husband to institute proceedings for divorce. This application for grant of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty was initially filed at Gwalior. However, this was subsequently transferred to Jabalpur as is clear from the order-sheet dated 14.12.1984.

(3.) The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has not been given a reasonable opportunity to examine herself as a witness in the matter and the trial Court committed an error in proceeding under Order 17, Rule 3 and at any rate since the judgment was not pronounced forthwith upon conclusion of the arguments of the parties on 22.1.1987, the learned trial Court would have easily afforded opportunity to the appellant to examine herself. Reliance was placed on a decision of Allahabad High Court in Mst. Jagan Vs. Kanhaiyalal (AIR 1957 Allahabad 344 ) to show that the trial Court ought to have pronounced judgment forthwith which was not done and the judgment was pronounced by the Trial Court on 4.2.1987. In my opinion, there is no substance in this argument. The word 'forthwith' used in Rule 3ORDER17 of the Civil Procedure Code includes a reasonable time to pronounce judgment on merits. It may further be stated that the language of Rule 3 of Order itself gives a discretion to the Court to decide it either 'forthwith' or within a reasonable time as a word 'may' has been used therein. This is also a settled law.