KAMLESH KUMARI Vs. DHARAM PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- This revision petition is directed against an order of the learned District Judge, Jammu, dated 2-11-1985 whereby he has dismissed an application filed by the petitioner seeking withdrawal of the petition filed by her under S.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(2.) The parties to the petition were married on 17-1-1974 but subsequently it appears, their relations became strained. The petitioner filed a petition under S.9 of the Jammu and Kashmir Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the Court of learned District Judge, Jammu, seeking a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. It appears that the respondent had earlier filed a petition under S.9 of the Act in the Court of District Judge, Jammu, which was pending when the petitioner filed her petition because the fact of the pendency of the husband's petition was not known to the petitioner.

(3.) The petition filed by the petitioner vas transferred for its disposal to the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Jammu, but the petition filed by the respondent continued to remain on the file of the District Judge Jammu. Subsequently, it transpires, both the petitions were transferred to the Court of District Judge, Jammu. The parties appeared and were directed to file objections to the petitions filed against them by each other. Before the respondent could file his objections to the petition filed by the petitioner, the petitioner filed an application before the learned District Judge, Jammu, on 13-8-1985, stating therein that since a petition under S.9 of the Act had been filed by the respondent against her and the respondent was carving out a ground for getting a decree of divorce after obtaining a decree under S.9 of the Act, therefore, she desired that the petition filed by her may be dismissed as withdrawn. The application for withdrawal was resisted by the respondent who filed his objections on 26-8-1985. Vide impugned order the learned District Judge, Jammu, dismissed the application of the petitioner seeking withdrawal of the petition under S.9 of the Act holding that since a counter-claim had been made under S.29 of the Act by the respondent, the petitioner could not be allowed to withdraw the main petition.