MAHESH CHANDER SEHGAL Vs. KRISHNA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is appeal by Mehesh Chander Sehgal against his wife Smt. Krishna Kumari directed against the judgment of Shri Salig Ram Bakshi, Additional District Judge, Ambala dated January 15, 1969 allowing the petition filed by the wife against her husband under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 .

(2.) The parties were married on October 2, 1965. They lived together for couple of months after the date of the marriage. As a result of wedlock, there was no issue. On August 29, 1968, petition under Section 10 of the Act was presented on the ground of desertion and cruelty committed by the husband. During the pendency of the petition, efforts were made to bring about approachment between the parties but to no avail. The case was fixed for written-statement being filed by the husband and the issues being struck on January 15, 1969. The husband made a statement saying that he does not want to contest the petition. The wife in reply made a statement to the effect that her claim for judicial separation be decreed and the costs be borne by the parties. In terms of the statements made by the parties, the Court passed a consent order followed by a decree on the basis of those statements. The husband has filed the present appeal on the ground that the Court had independently to satisfy itself about the existence of grounds urged on behalf of the wife and that no decree could be passed on the basis of statements as made by the parties.

(3.) The passing of a decree in a petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the basis of statements made by the parties consenting to the petition being granted and decree in favour of the petitioner against the respondent being passed is against the inhibition of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is provided therein that no decree in case of a petition filed under the Act can be passed as a result of collusion between the parties. The decree in the present case being forbidden by the statutory provision of Section 23(1)(c) is not maintainable.