LAWS(P&H)-2011-4-99

RAM RATTAN Vs. SUNITA KUMARI ALIAS PINKI

Decided On April 18, 2011
RAM RATTAN Appellant
V/S
Sunita Kumari Alias Pinki Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Code') against order dated 20.1.2004, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ropar, vide which application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code filed by Respondent-wife was accepted and ex parte judgment and decree for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') passed in favour of the Petitioner-husband and against Respondent-wife by learned Additional District Judge, Ropar, dated 7.8.1991 and ex parte order dated 19.7.1991 were set aside.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully.

(3.) Brief facts are that a petition under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce was filed by Petitioner-husband-Ram Rattan against Respondent-wife-Sunita Kumari @ Pinki on 12.4.1990. It has been pleaded that marriage between the parties was solemnised on 25.6.1981 at Village Bar Gaon,Tehsil Ghumarbin, Post Office Naghiar, District Bilaspur, as per Hindu Rites and Customs. After the marriage, parties lived together at Village Mataur, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar. It has been further averred that Respondent-wife compelled the Petitioner to live separate from his old parents and that she is of quarrelsome nature and used to misbehave with Petitioner and she left the matrimonial home in January 1983, without any cause, in the absence of Petitioner and refused to return. It is further contended that Petitioner visited the house of his in-laws and requested the parents of Respondent to send her with him and, however, they refused and rather they insisted that he should transfer his land in the name of his wife and only then she would be sent to the matrimonial home. He also convened Panacahyat and has visited the village of parents of the Respondent and, however, parents of Respondent refused to send her with him and hence, he filed the petition for divorce.