BAL KISHAN Vs. URMILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Bal Kishan was married to respondent Urmila Sharma on 23-2-1985. They lived together as husband and wife for about for months and after 19-6-1985, they have not lived together. The appellant had filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') for declaration of the marriage to be a nullity which was decided against him on 12-12-1986. The appellant filed an appeal against this decision in the High Court and the appeal was also rejected on 13-12-1988. In the meanwhile, the respondent wife had filed an application under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed in her favour on 12-12-1986. The appellant, thereafter, filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act or a decree of divorce on 22-3-1990 on the ground of cruelty, desertion and non-resumption of co-habitation for a period of more than one year after the passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights on 12-12-1986.

(2.) Respondent denied the allegations made relating to the grounds of cruelty, desertion and in answer to the ground relating to non-resumption of cohabitation after the passing of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights, contended that the appellant was taking advantage of his own wrong as he did not comply with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights and has filed a petition taking advantage of the same decree.

(3.) The Family Court, framed issues on the grounds of cruelty, desertion and non- restitution of conjugal rights between the parties for the period of one year or upward after the passing of decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Upon taking evidence and hearing parties, the Family Court held that the grounds of cruelty and desertion were not proved and on the ground of non-restitution of conjugal rights for more than one year after the passing of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights, the Family Court held that the appellant was not entitled to the relief as he was taking advantage of his own wrong. The petition was therefore, rejected. This is an appeal against that judgment and decree.