ANGOORI DEVI Vs. GURNAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is wife's appeal against the decree of divorce passed at the instance of the husband who had earlier obtained a decree of restitution of conjugal rights against his wife Angoori Devi.

(2.) MARRIAGE between the parties was solemnised in the year 1981. Out of this wedlock one daughter was born who is with the mother. Parties separated company in January, 1983. The husband filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the Act), for restitution of conjugal rights on 12.5.1983. The wife suffered an ex parte decree dated 23.3.1984. copy Exhibit P -1. Meanwhile she also moved an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance on 7.3.1983 which was ultimately allowed on 29.7.1985 by virtue of which a sum of Rs. 200/ - per month was fixed as maintenance. The wife also moved an application for setting aside the ex -parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights on 5.4.1984. The said application was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 2.8.1984, copy Exhibit P -3. Husband filed the present petition under section 13 of the Act for divorce on 11.4.1986 on the ground that since the time of passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights dated 12.5.1983, the wife did not resume cohabitation and therefore, he was entitled to get the marriage dissolved by decree of divorce as contemplated in section 13(1 -A)(ii) of the Act. The petition was contested by the wife on the ground that when she moved an application for setting aside the ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the matter was got compromised by the respectables and therefore, the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn. According to her, she accompanied the husband to resume her matrimonial duties and thus she remained with her husband for about 20 days when she was again maltreated and turned out of the house. According to her contention it is the husband who is at fault and is trying to take advantage of his own wrong.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues : 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the decree of divorce on the ground alleged. 2. Relief. Under issue No. 1, the trial Court found that: - "In the light of the facts noted above, it cannot be held that there has been any resumption of cohabitation between the parties after the decree dated 23.3.1984 or that the respondent was again beaten and turned out of the house by the petitioner." In view of that finding the marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce.