GOPI BAI Vs. GOVIND RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Like a leaf in autumn, the wife-wife has been drifting in troubled waters. Abandoned by a husband, forced to look after her child, the wife is challenging the judgment dated 6-9-2001 passed by the Family Court No. 1, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge had granted divorce in favour of the husband.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is the wife and the husband (henceforth to be referred to as 'the wife' and 'the husband' respectively, for short) were married in 1984 according to the Hindu rites and customs. During the wedlock, a girl, Usha, was born on 2-1-1990. After the birth of the daughter, the wife was allegedly thrown out of her matrimonial home. She, therefore, decided to go back to her parental home. Unable to look after herself and the child, she filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Code' for short). She also filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act', for short). Vide Order dated 16-9-1993. her application under Section 9 of the Act was allowed and the husband was directed to resume cohabitation with the wife. However, according to the husband, he refused to co-habit with the wife. Instead, he filed an application against the wife under Section 13 of the Act on the ground of non-resumption of cohabitation by the wife.

(3.) In the divorce petition, the husband claimed that after the delivery of the child the wife did not return to the matrimonial home. The reason for her non-return was that the husband's younger brother was engaged to the wife's younger sister. But. subsequently, the wife's family broke off the said engagement. The husband's family tried their level best to prevent the marriage of the wife's sister to another person. But, her family succeeded in getting her married off to one Mr. Chetandas. Further according to the husband in 1991, the wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code and another application under Section 9 of the Act. He and the members of the community tried to convince the wife to return to her matrimonial home. But she refused to do so. He further claimed that vide order dated 16-9-1993, the learned Judge had allowed the application under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the wife. However, despite the said decree in favour of the wife, she has not resumed cohabitation with the husband. Hence, he is entitled for divorce on the non-compliance of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights.