RAJESH KUMAR MADAAN Vs. MAMTA ALIAS VEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is a delay of 13 days in re -filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application and after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we find sufficient grounds to condone the delay in re -filing the appeal. Civil miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay in re -filing the appeal is accordingly allowed.

(2.) THIS appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act' for short) has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 10.9.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad whereby the petition of the appellant -husband for seeking divorce from the respondent -wife has been dismissed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Additional District Judge has gravely erred in dismissing the petition of the appellant for dissolution of the marriage between the parties by way of decree of divorce. It is further contended that the parties to the marriage are admittedly living separately since 9.2.1997 and that the respondent had deserted the appellant without any reasonable and sufficient cause on 9.2.1997 on which date she left her matrimonial home with all her belongings. Besides, it is contended that the learned Additional District Judge has not adverted to the compromise (Ex.P -6) in pursuance of which it is established that the marriage between the parties is a broken marriage and that is why by virtue of the compromise divorce between the parties on payment of Rs. 4,50,000/ - by the appellant to the respondent was agreed to be settled in the Panchayat which was also signed by the parties. In fact, in furtherance to the compromise (Ex.P -6), it is contended that Rs. 50,000/ - was paid on the day the compromise was reduced into writing and Rs. 4 lacs was agreed to be paid in Court and out o the same Rs. 2,50,000/ - was to be deposited in the name of female child of the parties and Rs. 2 lacs was to be given to the respondent. Besides, the filing of petition under Section 9 of the Act by the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights was a bona fide act on his part and it is the respondent who did not join his company.