CAPTAIN B R SYAL Vs. RAM SYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal in a matrimonial cause by Major B. R. Syal, appellant, against his wife Shrimati Rama Syal. from the decision of the Senior Subordinate Judge. Ludhiana dismissing his application for dissolution of his marriage.

(2.) THE facts of this case are that the petitioner was married to the respondent on 13th of July, 1955. A daughter was born to them on 11th of April. 1956 and she now is over eleven years old. Upto 19th of February, 1960. the parties lived together at Ludhiana The petitioner has stated that on that date, she left Ludhiana for Agra in order to attend the marriage of her cousin and did not come back. She stayed at Delhi and has been living away from her husband without any reason. On 12th of August, 1960, the husband filed an application under Section 9 of the hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and obtained an ex parte decree on 10th of November, 1960. He took out execution on 20th of January, 1962, alleging that the decree had not been satisfied and his wife had refused to accept notice of the execution application.

(3.) ON 15th of June, 1962, she made an application for maintenance under S. 488 of Code of Criminal Procedure. On 24th of July, 1962, the wife made an application to the Subordinate Judge for setting aside the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. On 7th June. 1963, her application was dismissed. She went up in appeal to the High Court from the order of the Subordinate Judge dismissing her application for setting aside the ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights vide P. A. O. 152 of 1963. In the High Court, the parties made their statements and order was passed in terms of the agreement they had arrived at. The husband had made a statement on 21st of January, 1966, in this Court before Mahajan J. to the effect that he would pay a sum of Rs. 250 per mensem for her maintenance so long as she did not remarry. In the event of her obtaining an employment, the maintenance amount would be proportionately reduced. Besides, he would pay a sum of Rs. 75 per mensem for the maintenance of their daughter so long as she lived with the mother. He would bear the expenses of education of their child. There were other conditions relating to the future maintenance of the daughter which need not be mentioned for purposes of disposing of this case. The wife also made a statement agreeing to the terms proposed by the husband. In terms of the above statements, an agreed order was passed on 21st of January, 1966.