SUDARSHAN KUMAR CHADHA Vs. SAROJ RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We take the view that this matrimonial first appeal referred for decision by the Division Bench is substantially concluded by the exhaustive judgment of the Full Bench in Joginder Singh v. Smt. Pushpa, AIR 1969 Punj & Har 397. It, therefore, suffices to advert to the facts somewhat briefly.

(2.) The respondent-wife Smt. Saroj Rani had earlier preferred a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of Mr. M. R. Batra, Subordinate Judge, Jullundur. This was contested by the appellant-husband, but it would appear that during the pendency of the proceedings a compromise was apparently arrived at and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed in favour of the respondent wife on the 29th of Mar., 1978. It is stated that despite the passing of the said decree there was no restitution of conjugal rights between the parties for more than one year. The appellant husband then brought the petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act giving rise to the present appeal.

(3.) Whilst contesting this petition for divorce the respondent-wife admitted the marriage betwixt the parties; the place of residence and the birth of two children out of the wedlock. It was, however firmly pleaded that in pursuance of the earlier decree for restitution conjugal rights there had been a resumption of cohabitation betwixt the parties and that she had lived with the husband for two days and had thereafter been expelled from the house. Significantly no plea whatsoever was taken on her behalf that the earlier decree for restitution for conjugal rights in her favour was wither collusive or was a nullity on that score. An application under Section 28-A of the Hindu Marriage Act for compliance of the decree in fact was fled. On the aforesaid pleadings the trial Court framed the following two issues only :- 1. Whether there has been no restitution of conjugal rights after the passing of a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights ? 2. Relief. On a consideration of the evidence led by the parties on the solitary issue on merits the trial Court concluded as under :--