GULAB KAUR Vs. GURDEV SINGH RATTAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the decision of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class bhatinda dissolving the appellant's marriage with the respondent under Section 13 (1) (ix) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. There is no dispute on facts. The appellant suffered an ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights. That decree was never executed and after the lapse of two years, the present petition for divorce was filed under Section 13 (1) (ix) of the Act. The petition was opposed mainly on the grounds that the ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights was obtained by fraud, and that in any case the decree-holder had to seek its compliance and as no compliance was sought, it cannot be held that there has been no compliance with the decree. It is true that no steps were ever taken to execute the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. No arguments have been addressed on the first ground which was found against the appellant.

(2.) SO far as the second ground is concerned I have to proceed on the basis that there is a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the appellant which has not been executed so far. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as the decree has not been executed nor been an oral demand for its compliance made therefore it cannot be said that there has been a failure of compliance with the decree for a period of two years and, thus the respondent is not entitled to a decree for divorce. I an unable to agree with this contention. Clause (ix) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act reads thus: