VEENA BHATIA Vs. RADHE SHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, dated May 30, 1981, whereby the petition for divorce under section 13(1-A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, (hereinafter called the Act) filed on behalf of the appellant wife was dismissed.

(2.) The marriage between the parties was solemnised on January 29, 1974, at Amritsar. Out of that wedlock, a daughter was born on October 1, 1975 who died subsequently. On September 7, 1977, an application for the grant of a decree of judicial separation, under section 10 of the Act, was filed on behalf of the appellant against the respondent. He did not put in appearance in spite of service. Thus, an ex parte decree for judicial separation was passed in favour of the appellant on January 22, 1979. She also filed a petition under section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, for the grant of maintenance, which was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate. The petition for grant of divorce under sec. 13(1-A) of the Act was filed on July 31, 1980, inter alia alleging there in that there had been no resumption of cohabitation between the parties after the passing of the decree for judicial separation on January 22, 1979 and, therefore, in view of the provisions of section 13(1-A) of the Act, she was entitled to a decree of divorce by the dissolution of her marriage with the respondent. In this petition as well, the respondent did not appear in spite of his personal service. The statement of the appellant was recorded as P. W. 1. by the trial Court. Since none had put in appearance on behalf of the respondent, certain questions were put by the Court itself and ultimately, it dismissed her application vide order under appeal on the ground that there was no evidence to the effect that the respondent did not want to keep her or did not allow her to live in his house. As regards the decree passed under section 10 of the Act, dated January 22, 1979, the trial Court observed that it being an ex parte decree, did not entitle the petitioner to the grant of a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Court.

(3.) Notice of the appeal was given to the respondent and on May 17, 1982, he was present, in person, in the Court and wanted time to bring his counsel. Consequently, the case was adjourned to May 24, 1982. However, the case could not be taken up that day and today no one is present on his behalf to contest this appeal.