HIRA LAL YADAV Vs. PRATIMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Today is second consecutive day when this matter is taken up, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant-petitioner. The Respondent is represented through Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned Counsel.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the sole respondent and have perused the records and having examined the matter, we proceed to dispose of the matter because it seems that the appellant has lost interest in pursuing the matter which is evident from the conspicuous absence of the Counsel representing him on two consecutive dates.

(3.) Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned Counsel for the sole respondent while supporting the judgment and decree of the Court below has submitted that the conduct of the appellant who was the petitioner before the Court below can be gathered from the fact that initially an application was filed on his behalf by invoking provisions under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for restitution of conjugal rights. While praying thus that an alternative relief was also made for dissolution of marriage of the parties. It is submitted that since the respondent had shown her willingness to return to the matrimonial home while contesting the allegations made by the appellant-petitioner in the application, that there was a change in the mind and he filed an amendment petition seeking divorce from the respondent under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of 'the Act' on grounds of cruelty which amendment petition was allowed vide order dated 29.07.2003 but the Court below having noted the frivolity of the issue raised by the appellant-petitioner has been pleased to dismiss the matrimonial case by the judgment and decree impugned. Having thus considered the submission of the learned counsel for the sole respondent and having noted the pleadings on record as well as the lower Court records, we proceed to consider the matter on merits.