PADMA Vs. PARMA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals can be conveniently disposed of by means of one judgment. Misc. First Appeal 22 of 59 arises out of a petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, instituted by Mt. Padma against her husband, Parma Ram, for judicial separation (case No. 74 instituted in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Mandi, exercising powers of a District Court under the above Act on 27-51958). Misc. First Appeal No. 23 of 59 arises out of a petition under Section 9 (case No. 63 for restitution of conjugal rights) instituted by Parma Ram against Mt. Padma in the same Court on 28-4-1958. The learned Judge granted Parma Ram's petition, but dismissed that of Mt. Padma, by means of his judgments D/-6-21959. Aggrieved by these decisions, Mt. Padma has come up in appeal under Section 28 of the Act in both cases. Mt. Padma was married to Parma Ram some years ago and there is a child of the marriage. The marriage was what is known as an exchange marriage, i. e., while Mt. Padma was married to Parma Ram, Parma Ram's sister, Mt. Vidya was married to Saran, brother of Mt. Padma. Mt. Padma's case was that Mt. Vidya had contracted liaison with Nokhu and declined to live with her husband, Saran. Parma Ram put pressure upon Mt. Padma to persuade her brother to divorce Mt. Vidya so that she (Mt. Vidya) could settle down permanently with Nokhu. Saran, however, did not agree to follow such a course. Consequently, Parma Ram started treating Mt. Padma with habitual cruelty. He went to the extent of beating her and turning her out of his house. On these premises, Mt. Padma claimed that she had reasonable apprehension in her mind that it would be harmful and injurious for her to live with Parma Ram. Therefore, she claimed a decree for judicial separation. In addition, she sought maintenance pendente lite and reasonable expenses of proceedings under Section 24.

(2.) The allegations of cruelty were denied by Parma Ram. According to him, the petition for judicial separation was by way of reply to his earlier application for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9. According to Parma Ram, Mt. Padma had withdrawn herself from his society without reasonable excuse. Therefore, he sought a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against Mt. Padma under Section 9.

(3.) The two petitions were separately tried by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, although they were disposed of simultaneously. Evidence in the two eases was recorded separately, although some witnesses were common.