PREMWATI Vs. HEERA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the order of the Family Court dated 14.9.1994 preferred by the wife of respondent-Heera Lal who is Smt. Premwati against the grant of decree of divorce passed by the Family Court, Ajmer (Raj.).

(2.) The appellant and the respondent had admittedly been married in the year 1969 and they lived together up to the year 1981. They also had a son out of their wedlock but thereafter it appears that differences arose between the couple as a result of which they separated and ceased to live together. According to the. appellant-wife she was turned out of the matrimonial home by the respondent-husband Heera Lal as according to the wife, he was 1 unduly attached to the widow of his deceased brother and she alleged illicit relationship between her husband and the sister-in-law. As a consequence of this, the appellant-wife left her matrimonial home and started living separately. The respondent-husband Heera Lal thereafter filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights bearing case No. 82/88 which was allowed ex-parte on 1.11.1988. It is obvious that as a consequence of this order the appellant-wife was legally bound to join her husband and should have started living together. Although she initially accepted that she is prepared to live with her husband, she laid down three conditions for joining her husband. One of the conditions was that the entire property standing in the name of her husband should be transferred in her name. The second condition was that the entire amount of maintenance which had been ordered to be paid to her by a Court at New Delhi should be paid to her. The third condition was that the husband should approach her with some responsible person and give an undertaking before the Court that he will not trouble her in any manner in case she accepts to live with him. Thereafter, it appears that although the respondent-husband agreed to accept the second and third conditions regarding the payment of maintenance and undertaking for living with his wife without troubling her, the first condition that the entire property be transferred in her name was not acceptable to the respondent-husband. This became a bone of contention between the couple and they continued to live separately. After expiry of the statutory period of one year essential for the couple to give effect to the decree of restitution of conjugal rights, the husband filed an application for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of not giving effect to the decree of restitution of conjugal rights.

(3.) The learned Judge of the Family Court, after meticulously examining the evidence led by the contesting parties, recorded a finding that the appellant-wife refused to live with her husband without any just cause and the condition put by her that she would return to matrimonial home only if the entire properties were transferred in her name, was unreasonable condition. It was also noted that she was unfair in levelling unfounded allegations against her husband regarding illicit relationship between her husband and his sister-in-law (Bhabhi). It was explained by the counsel for the respondent- husband that in fact the respondent-husband lost his brother at a young age and there was no male member in the family who was earning and could undertake the responsibility of the entire family. The expectation of the wife that he should detach himself from the entire responsibility of the family was most unreasonable on the part of the wife and, therefore, she was held liable for resisting the decree for restitution of conjugal rights by not cooperating to live with her husband by laying down unreasonable, stringent and unworkable conditions. The learned Judge of the family court, therefore, was pleased to grant a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent-husband against which this appeal has been preferred by the wife.