MST. RALLI Vs. KHER DIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by Mst. Rall Plaintiff arises out of the dismissal of her suit for dissolution of her marriage by the lower appellate Court. She was married to Khair Din Respondent ten years before the suit which was instituted in the Court of the Sub -Judge 2nd Class, Malerkotla on 5 -6 -1951. For the first four years of their married life, the couple appear to have lived peace -. fully, but an acute cleavage occurred between them thereafter perhaps on account of the husband having married Anr. woman. According to the Plaintiff as her husband became cruel, assaulted her and eventually turned her out of his house; she had to seek the protection of her parents, with whom she lived for about four years all the time hoping for a compassionate and regardful. change in her husband's attitude but found that instead of his callousness towards her melting down the chances of a reconciliation had become remote. Khair Din did not make any arrangement for her subsistence nor did he discharge any other obligation arising out of the matrimonial relationship. Mst. Ralli was thus completely neglected and, in fact deserted. She then filed a petition under Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure, for maintenance against which one of the defenses taken up by Khair Din was that she was a woman of bad character. He led no evidence to substantiate that accusation, but Mst. Ralli remained unsuccessful in those proceedings on other grounds.

(2.) ON 5 -8 -1951 she brought the present suit for dissolution of her marriage alleging. desertion and cruelty by the husband and also that he had brought a false charge of adultery against her. The Defendant put in his written statement on 2 -8 -1951; but before that was done he had on the same day filed an application in the trial Court confessing that the charge of conjugal in fidelity brought by him against Mst. Ralli was no doubt, false and stating further that he with drew it unconditionally. The same expression of regret was repeated in the written statement. The trial Court drew up the following two issues:

(3.) I am unable to agree with the contention of the Respondent 's counsel that once it is proved that the husband has withdrawn the charge, however, recklessly or irresponsibly made the Courts are bound to accept it as enough to save the marriage from being dissolved. The season for my doing so Is that it appears to me that the sole object of allowing the husband to retract is, to give him an opportunity to be genuinely remorseful and to enable him to bring to life again the regard and love with which they lived before the disrupting charge was leveled, If, there -fore, the husband in his unabated vindictiveness wants, to save the marriage only with the ulterior object of oppressing and harassing the wife so that she, may lead a life of misery worse than widowhood and with that object repudiates the false accusation even at the early stages of the suit Courts would not only be extremely thoughtful but would not hesitate to pass a decree for dissolution. In - 'Shamsunnessa Khatun v. Mir Andul Mannaf : AIR 1940 Cal 95 (A), it was held by Mohamad Akram J. that the purpose behind the principle of retraction is to give the husband a locus penitential before the marriage is dissolved and the object is to re -establish cordial relationship between the husband and the wife. The retraction, therefore, must be made bona fide and not to serve as a device for defeating the suit. I am in respectful agreement with this view.