SURINDER KAUR Vs. MADAN GAPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal involves the problem of salvage of a broken marriage To what extent can the matrimonial Court indulge in the rescue operation and the sphere of its activity is the point of a combat between the warring divorced spouses fflvolnn8 disposal of property.

(2.) Shrimati Surinder Kaur appellant was married to Madan Gopal Sin respondent at Chandigarh on 14-4-1973. On 5-11-1974, she was in the first matrimonial Court claiming judicial separation from her husband on the basis of cruelty meted out to her by the husband. The husband beforehand on 16-71974 had come to the first matrimonial Court claiming restitution of conjugal rights said to have been disrupted on 30-8-1979 by the withdrawal of the wife from his society. During the pendency of the aforesaid two matters, the wife filed an application under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter briefly referred to as the Act) on 9-1-1975 for disposal of the property enumerated in Annexures `A' and B appended therewith. This application was kept pending with the aforesaid two matters. The husband with the permission of the Court obtained withdrawal of the petition under Section 9 of the Ad in order to file a petition under S. 13(1)(i-b) of the Act. Thus on 18-4-1977, he filed a petition for a decree of divorce on the ground that the wife had deserted him for a continuous period of not less than two years. The three matters, namely the husband's petition for divorce; the wife's petition for judicial separation and the wife's petition for disposal of property, were disposed of by a common judgment and order of the first matrimonial Court on 10.10-1979. The petition of the husband was allowed whereas both the petitions of the wife were dismissed.

(3.) None of the spouses has chosen to challenge the judgment and decree of the first matrimonial first either in the petition under Section 10 or under Section 13 of the Act. Thus, the dissolution of the matrimonial bond between the spouses is welcome to both of them. They are at peace on that front but are at war on the matter of disposal of property. Since the petition of the wife for such purpose was dismissed she has challenged through this appeal that order of the first matrimonial Court.