JASWINDER KAUR Vs. KULWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal be one Jaswinder Kaur who stands divorced under the judgment and decree of the first matrimonial Court, whereby her marriage with Kulwant Singh was dissolved.

(2.) THE marriage between the parties took place in December, 1971, They have a daughter who at present is living with the wife. The husband obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on September 17, 1977 from the first matrimonial Court, which was later an confirmed in appeal by the High Court on July 28, 1978. The decree having remained uncomplied with, gave a lever to the hu9band to move the first matrimonial Court in a petition under Section 13 (1-A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of the marriage as the said decree had remained uncomplied with for a period of more than one year. The petition was contested by the wife, According to her, she and her father and a few other persons approached the husband to settle her in his house but he declined her request. She repeated the attempt while the matter was pending in the High Court in appeal but the effort proved fruitless. In the presence of these two instances she drew the inference that the husband himself was at fault and thus was no entitled to a decree for divorce in the light of Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-1. Whether the respondent resumed cohabitation after the passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. 2. Relief,

(3.) THE Court came to the conclusion that it was evident from the admitted facts that there was no resumption of cohabitation between the parties and at best the allegation of the wife only confined to her suggested efforts to resume cohabitation with the husband fruitlessly. Even the suggested efforts by the wife were not believed by the Court and it was held that the evidence put forward by her was not satisfactory. On either situation and from whatever angle the matter was looked into, it was felt that there was no resumption of cohabitation so as to whittle down the effect of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, disentitling the husband, or for that matter either party, to obtain a decree for dissolution of marriage.