(1.) SMT . Veena Kumari's petition for divorce under section 13(1)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of her husband's apostasy has been dismissed by the learned District Judge, Gurgaon, with the observations, inter alia, that the petition had been presented in collusion with the respondent and that there was an unnecessary and improper delay in filing it. Smt. Veena Kumari has, therefore, come up in appeal to this Court, Her husband, Shri Prem Kumar respondent, had not contested the petition in the lower Court and he has not even bothered to appear in spite of service of notice of this appeal.
(2.) THE marriage between the parties has been solemnised at Gurgaon on 5th January, 1966. The parties had lived together as husband and wife after the marriage for a period of only about three months and no child had been born from the wedlock. In the divorce petition, both the parties are shown to have professed Hindu religion at the time of the marriage. The respondent was, however, shown to be a Christian on the date of filing of the petition.
(3.) THE learned trial judge had examined the parties on the first hearing before the framing of issues. The parties are examined at that stage with the idea of elucidating the pleadings and the facts of the case or for bringing about an amicable settlement. It is doubtful whether the learned judge was justified in dismissing the divorce petition in that manner without calling upon the parties to produce their evidence. In view of the written statement filed by the respondent and the documentary evidence about the ground on which divorce had been claimed by the appellant, there was hardly any justification for dismissing the petition. The observations that there was any delay in the filing of the petition or that the parties were colluding with each other are not borne out by the record. The respondent had given a valid explanation for the impression created that he was professing Christianity even before the formal baptismal ceremony.