JASMEL SINGH Vs. GURNAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a first appeal filed by Jasmail Singh son of Gurdit Singh, resident of village Ramawala Nawan. Tehsil Moga, District Ferozepur against the order dated October 20, 1971 of the Additional District Judge, Lu-dhiana, whereby he dismissed his petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriase Act for dissolution of his marriaee by decree of divorce against his wife Shrimati Gurnam Kaur, respondent.

(2.) THE facts of this case are that the marriage of Jasmail Singh appellant took place with Smt. Gurnam Kaur on May 15, 1955 according to Hindu rites in village Sawaddi, Tehsil Jagraon. District Ludhiana and thereafter thev both lived as husband and wife at the house of the appellant in village Ramawala, Tehsil Moga. From the loins of the appellant, the respondent gave birth to a girl on or about the year 1957 and her name is Har- bans Kaur. Some differences arose between the parties thereafter and it is aliened that the respondent went to village Sawaddi and took her daughter Harbans Kaur with her and in spite of repeated requests she did not return to his house, Jasmail Singh appellant filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights against her and a decree for restitution of coniugal rights was passed in his favour against Gurnam Kaur on October 1. 1959. She did not comply with this decree for a period of more than two years after the passing of that decree and Jasmail Singh filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce against her on October 10, 1961, but this petition was withdrawn on May 11, 1962 on the assurance given by the respondent and her father that she would reside with him at his hou. se as his wife. However, thereafter she did not go to the house of the appellant and he then filed the present petition on January 14, 1970 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce.

(3.) GURNAM Kaur respondent contested this application. She admitted the passing of the decree for restitution of coniugal rights against her and also the withdrawal of the previous petition for a decree of divorce. However, she pleaded that she was always ready and willing to go to the house of the petitioner and to live with him as his wife but he always avoided her company and had been harassing her, that after the passing of the decree she went to his house and resided with him and that the decree was satisfied and this application may, therefore, be dismissed.