RANJIT KAUR Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the District Judge, Chandigarh, dated 1st March, 1970, whereby the petition of Sukhdev Singh, Respondent, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was accepted and a decree for dissolution of marriage by divorce was granted in favour of the Respondent.

(2.) THE parties were happily married in September, 1966, but their happiness was short -lived and shortly after the marriage their relations became strained. As a result of this, the parties started living separately and Ranjit Kaur was forced to file a petition for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act. This application was granted and she obtained a decree for judicial separation on 30th December, 1967. It was an ex parte decree as Sukhdev Singh, the husband, did not contest it. After the lapse of two years Sukhdev Singh filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming divorce on the ground that more than two years had elapsed after the decree for judicial separation was passed and that the parties had not resumed cohabitation during this period.

(3.) ON behalf of the Appellant no serious effort was made to challenged the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 1. In this respect the main contention was that the parties having compromised in the criminal proceedings which were pending in January, 1969 it was reasonable to conclude that the parties had resumed cohabitation. There seems to be no merit in this contention. From the documents on the record it emerges that a case under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code had been instituted against Harbhajan Singh, the brother of Sukhdev Singh, but this was withdrawn on 23rd January, 1969. It was brought out that Harbhajan Singh had instituted a case under Section 392 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code which was also withdrawn. An application was then filed for the restoration of pistol license of Harbhajan Singh and on one of the application the relatives of the husband had also signed. From these documents it would emerge that the parties did not want to proceed with the criminal cases which had been instituted against their relations. From this desire to end criminal litigation it does not necessarily follow that the parties had decided to live together.