MANOHAR SINGH Vs. SUSHILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEFORE hearing the learned Counsel for the parties in this case I made an effort in Chambers, for a compromise between the parties. I am sorry to say that it has not been successful.

(2.) THE appellant and the respondent were admittedly married on June 10, 1951. The appellant ultimately obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights on February 11, 1961. He presented the present petition under Section 13(IA)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act on April 21, 1965 for dissolution of the marriage by a decree for divorce on the ground that there was no restitution of conjugal rights as between the parties to the marriage for a period of two years or upwards after the passing of the decree. The respondent decided the contention of the petitioner in this respect and pleaded that she had lived with him as his wife and was prepared to live with him. She specifically mentioned, in paragraph 6(b) of her reply, the periods of time during which she and the petitioner lived and cohabited together. The learned District Judge therefore framed an issue on the question whether the respondent had not resumed cohabitation for a continuous period of two years and upwards after the passing of the decree for the restitution of conjugal rights? He found the issue against the petitioner and dismissed the petition for divorce on January 30, 1967. It is against that decision that the petitioner has come to this Court in appeal.

(3.) A perusal of the record shows that even though the appellant stated at one stage, in the opening part of his examination -in -chief, that the respondent did not come to him after the passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights so that she did not carry out that decree, he later on admitted, in the subsequent part of his examination -in -chief, that his wife the respondent went to his house and lived with him in June, 1964, for a period of about 15 or 20 days He also stated that she again came to his house in the Deshra of 1964 and stayed with him for two or three days. Further, he admitted that the respondent came to his house during the Dewali of 1964 and stayed with him for two days and two nights. In the course of the cross -examination he further admitted that his wife came to him in December, 1963, and stayed with him. He has of course stated that whenever his wife came to him they did not live as husband and wife, but this is far from saying that the wife was to blame for it and was not willing to comply with the 'decree for restitution of conjugal rights. There is therefore nothing in. the statement of the petitioner to show that there was no restitution of conjugal rights because of the unwillingness of the respondent.