LAKHVINDER KAUR Vs. GURMEL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lakhvinder Kaur being aggrieved of judgement and decree dated 23.10.1993, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot allowing the petition filed by respondent-husband under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as an 'Act') for dissolution of their marriage, has preferred this appeal.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that marriage between appellant and respondent - Gurmel Singh was solemnised in Dec., 1972 at village Maur Charat Singh, District Bathinda. Two sons were born out of this wedlock. One of them unfortunately passed away soon after his birth. The second son Soma Singh is living with the appellant. The respondent-husband preferred a petition under Sec. 13 of the Act, for dissolution of their marriage in Aug., 1992 on the ground that appellant - wife has deserted him without reasonable excuse or cause and despite attempts to bring her back, she did not return, therefore, he initially preferred an application under Sec. 9 of the Act for decree of restitution of conjugal rights. The petition was contested by the appellant but decree dated 07.05.1982 accepting the petition under Sec. 9 of the Act was passed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Faridkot. The allegations of adultery and misappropriation levelled by the appellant in these proceedings were found to be false. She also filed a complaint under Sec. 406/34 IPC, which was dismissed. After passing of decree dated 07.05.1982 (Ex. A1), under Sec. 9 of the Act, all attempts to bring the appellant back to matrimonial home failed. She did not comply with decree Ex. A1, and never cohabited with her husband compelling the respondent to file a petition under Sec. 13 of the Act for dissolution of the marriage.

(3.) The appellant-wife while contesting the petition for divorce denied the allegations against her as a cooked up story and took a stand that respondent-husband never approached her to join his society. It was she who took an initiative in Feb., 1992 by taking a Panchayat but he refused to rehabilitate her and their son Soma Singh. In fact, respondent - Gurmel Singh has an illicit relationship with one Harmander Kaur, daughter of Gurbax Singh, who was living with him. One child was born out of the said illicit relations. She could not comply with decree dated 07.05.1982 because of non co-operation on the part of respondent and he should not be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong in view of Sec. 23 (1) (a) of the Act.