CHANDER KANT ARORA Vs. DAMYANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent appears in person in pursuance to the notice. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent in person, I do not find any merit in this petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Hirakalli v. Dr. Ram Asrey Awasthy, 1971 AIR(All) 201 and also on a decision of this Court in Mahesh Chander Sehgal v. Krishna Kumari, 1971 CurLJ 778 to contend that if a decree of judicial separation is passed on the basis of consent of the parties, the said decree is null and void in view of the provisions of Section 23(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act. I do not find any merit in this contention. The cases cited are clearly distinguishable. Merely because the decree is passed with consent, will not be hit by the provisions of Section 23(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The pre requisite for invoking the said provisions is that the Court has to come to the conclusion that the petition is presented or prosecuted in collusion with the respondent. In the present case, the learned trial Judge after discussing the facts of the case, came to the conclusion that it was after a hot contest that the consent decree was passed. It has further been brought to my notice that the respondent in the case was served after a considerable time after appropriate steps having been taken at various stages and after the written statement having been filed and issues having been framed, the petitioner's evidence was summoned for being examined, at an earlier date and even on 20th August, 1976, when the compromise decree was passed, the evidence summoned by the petitioner was present in Court. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.