PRITAM KAUR Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE linchpin of our justice system--the doctrine of precedent and its binding nature--is the significantly spinal issue in this reference by the learned single Judge recording a frontal dissent from the ratio of the Full bench in Smt. Kailash Wati v. Avodhia Parkash. (1977) 79 Pun LR 216 and seeking its reconsideration by a still larger a Bench. This jugular issue inevitably calls for adjudication at the very threshold. 2 The issue aforesaid stems from a broken-down marriage. The respondent-husband had preferred a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the restitution of conjuga1 rights against the appellant-wife. It was averred that the parties were married way back in July, 1967 and a daughter born out of this wedlock had died within a few days of her birth. The couple resided together for a year or less and that too sporadically and thereafter on the l7th of August, 1972. the appellant-wife withdrew from the society of the respondent-husband without any reasonable cause and despite repeated requests and entreaties of the respondent-husband arid the members of his family she declined to return and live with him. Ultimately, a panchayat along with the family members of the respondent-husband had approached and requested for the return of the appellant-wife to the matrimonial home but she flatly refused to return and stay with him at Bhatinda. The respondent-husband was then compelled to resort to the service of a registered legal notice to the wife in February 1974. reiterating his request to come and reside with him. Pursuant thereto the appellant-wife made a show of returning to the husbands house at Bhatinda for a few days and then again went away to her Parents house an the l6th of May. 1974. Persistent. attempts thereafter to persuade the appellant-wife to return to the matrimonial home having failed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was hence presented on the 27th of July. 1974. 3. In contesting the petition. the appellant-wife admitted the marriage but pleaded that she was serving as a teacher in another State in Rajasthan, where she was posted at different places after her marriage. It was alleged that she had continued in service of the Rajasthan Government with the consent of the respondent-husband. She pleaded that she had been continuing visiting the respondent-husband during the leave periods since she was continuing in service in Rajasthan at her various places of postings. In the replication filed by the respondent-husband, it was stoutly denied that the appellant-wife was continuing in the service of Rajasthan Government with his consent and instead it was averred that she was doing so against his categoric wishes to the contrary. The other allegations made in the written statement were also controverted. 4. On the aforesaid pleadings, the trial court learned a solitary issue in the following terms:-