LAWS(HPH)-1989-8-14

OM PARKASH Vs. SURESHTA DEVI

Decided On August 01, 1989
OM PARKASH Appellant
V/S
Sureshta Devi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, by the husband, arises out of the judgment of District Judge, Hamirpur in H.M.P. No. 2 of 1985 decided on 31 12 1988. The grievance is that this petition, jointly moved by the parties under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in brief "the Act") for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, has been dismissed by this Judgment and the appellant appeals that the decision is illegal and deserves to be set aside and the application under Section 13 B of the Act deserves to be allowed.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the appellant and the respondent were married on 21 11 1968 but soon they fell apart. They have no issue out of this wedlock. The matter came to such a pass that finally on January 8, 1985, a joint petition was moved under Section 13 B of the Act for the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. The statements of the parties, on oath, were separately recorded by the Court on 9 1 1985. This is the first stage of the case. The Second stage started with the filing of an application stated to have been prepared on January 15, 1985 but actually presented in the Court on behalf of the respondent, Sureshta Devi, on March 22, 1985, which, inter alia, mentions that the statement of January 9. 1985, was given by her under pressure and threat by the petitioner and before giving it she was not allowed to see or meet her relations to consult them before filing the petition nor were they permitted to accompany her to the Court. The relations, it is further alleged, were not informed about: the proposed divorce by mutual consent. It was thus prayed that in these circumstances, she may be permitted to withdraw her consent and the petition accordingly dismissed. The Court passed the following order on May 4, 1985 :

(3.) THUS the matter came for consideration before the District Judge who tried the matter and consequently dismissed the application under Section 13 B of the Act. It is this order, thus passed, which is under challenge in this appeal.