M P SHREEVASTAVA Vs. VEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal from order is directed against the order of the learned District judge dated 2-8-1963 by which it has been held that that Mrs. Veena has satisfied the decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained by the appellant Dr M P. Shreevastava, her husband.

(2.) IN order to understand the controversy, it may be stated that Mrs. Veena shreevastava presented an application under S. 47 read with S. 151. Code of Civil procedure, in the Court of the learned District Judge claiming that the decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained by her husband Dr. M. P. Shreevasata has been satisfied and an finding be recorded to that effect. According to her allegation her husband had deserted her and her allegations her husband had deserted her and she had obtained an ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights and she instead of applying for setting aside the said decree considered this as an opportune moment for giving back to her husband and living with his as his wife in pursuance of the decree. According he version accompanied by her husband and living with his as she her father she came to Delhi on 20-5-61 and went to the house of her husband with the object of living with him. Her husband was not present at his house at that time with the result that she waited for him. When he came home she greeted him but there was no response from her husband and indeed he immediately went away from the house and did not return for so long as she remained there. She waited for a couple of house but since the husband did not come back she went away. On account of absence of response from her husband she went back to Calcutta with her father and from there she wrote two letters to her husband one on 6-6-61 and the other on 16-6-61 under registered covers requesting her husband to allow her to come back and live with his as his wife. However for reasons best known to him, the husband did not even taken delivery of the letters which were returned to the sender. some attempt was also made through common friends to persuade the husband to take his wife back but without any fruitful result. In this setting according to the wife she has done all that was possible for her to that according top her the husband should be held no satisfaction of the ex parte decree obtained by him for restitution of conjugal rights.

(3.) THIS application has been resisted by the husband and a preliminary objection has been taken urging that the application is vague and barred by time under article 174 of the Indian Limitation maintainable because the wife has not actually alleged satisfaction of the decree and indeed it is pleaded that ht application has not been made with a genuine desire on the part of the wife to live with her husband. On the merits it has been out his permission on 18-11-1959 and since not come back or how willingness to live with him her husband house on 24-5-61 or on any the he had refused to take delivery of one of Th. registered letters because he was not desirous of other letter according to this peal was never presented to him in those days. I may mention here that the second letter has no it a note purporting to be by the postal authorities that he had left service and his address was not known. The other allegations made by the wife were of course denied.