NASIB KAUR Vs. JARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by wife, Nasib Kaur directed against judgment dated 2. 11. 1987 of the Additional District Judge, Faridkot, whereby marriage has been ordered to be dissolved by a decree of divorce in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 (1-A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

(2.) IN brief, the facts arc that marriage between the parties was solemnised about 33 years ago at the village Bagha Purana, Tehsil Moga, District Faridkot. Appellant filed Petition No. 18-3/84 on 12. 1. 1984 Under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short the Act) against the respondent and a decree was passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Moga, on 8. 1. 1986 in her favour. On the expiry of one year of the passing of the decree, respondent filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce Under Section 13 (1-A) (ii) of the Act on the ground that there had been no resumption of cohabitation between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year after the passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. On contest by the appellant, petition filed by the respondent has been allowed and in consequence thereof, the marriage between the parties has been ordered to be dissolved. Hence, the present appeal by the wife.

(3.) AFTER hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the record, I am of the view that there is no merit in the appeal. Section 13 (1-A) (i) of the Act provides that either party to a marriage, whether solemnised before or after the commencement of the Act, may present a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards after the passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a proceedings to which they were parties. Section 23 (1) (a) of the Act provides that in any proceeding under the Act, whether defended or not, if the Court is satisfied that any of the grounds for granting relief exists and the petitioner is not in any way taking advantage of his/her wrong or disability for the purpose of such relief. These two sections came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Bimla Devi d/o Bakhtawar Singh v. Singh Raj s/o Dasondhi Ram, AIR 1977 Punjab and Haryana, 167. The learned Judges of the Full Bench held :