JYOTI DEVI SONI Vs. GOURI SHANKAR SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5. 4. 2002, passed by Judge, Family Court No. 2, Jaipur, whereby petition of the husband-respondent filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed and the marriage solemnized between the parties on 25. 5. 1994 was dissolved. It was further ordered that the appellant shall be entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1000/- for her-self and Rs. 500/- for her minor daughter from the respondent-husband.

(2.) THE relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the respondent-husband filed an application for dissolution of his marriage with the appellant solemnized as per Hindu Rites on 25. 5. 1994 on the ground of cruelty. It was further alleged that ever since the marriage the appellant wife treated the respondent-husband and his family members with cruelty and she failed to perform her matrimonial obligations. She used to quarrel on petty matters and abused them and even threatened the respondent-husband to kill him and used to keep knife under her pillow. She behaved cruelly with her elder daughter and several times she made her to drink hot milk and in fact caused injury in her mouth. She deserted her matrimonial house about one and half year before filing the petitioner and went to stay with her parents. It is also alleged that two daughters were born to them out of the lawful wedlock. Hence the application for dissolution of marriage.

(3.) THE main contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, was compromised between the parties and after the compromise the respondent took the appellant to his house in the month of February 1996 and thereafter she remained there with the respondent up to 1. 10. 1996 when she was alleged to have gone to her parent's house. THErefore, according to the learned counsel, the allegation of cruelty against the appellant in view of the compromise was condoned by the respondent and it was not proved that ever since the aforesaid condonation she was subjected to any further cruelty by the appellant after the respondent took her to his residence in February 1996. THErefore, decree for divorce could not have been passed in view of the provisions of Section 23 (1) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. In support of his contention, counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon Dr. N. G. Gastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastane, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1534, wherein it has been held as under:- condonation means forgiveness of the matrimonial offence and the restoration of offending spouse to the same position as he or she occupied before the offence was committed. To constitute condonation there must be, therefore two things: forgiveness and restoration. . . . . . . . . . . (Para 55)