SOHAN LAL Vs. PRATIBHA MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO bank employees one serving at Ratlam (MP) and another in Ajmer (Rajasthan) came close together and their marriage was solemnized on May 11, 1993 at Ratlam according to Hindu rites. After marriage the wife (respondent) lived in the house of her husband (appellant) in Ajmer for a period of four months. Since she was a working woman she had to go back to Ratlam. The distance between the two gave rise to the dispute and the husband filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short `act') for restitution of conjugal rights. The litigation ended on March 4, 1998. Both the parties agreed to get themselves transfer to Jodhpur so that they could reside together. Till the transfer of wife, the husband agreed to visit Ratlam frequently.

(2.) IT appears that wife did not honour the compromise decree and the husband had to file the petition under section 13 of the Act in the Family Court Ajmer on April 16, 1999 i. e. after one year of the decree under section 9 of the Act. IT was inter alia pleaded in the petition that the husband had gone Ratlam many a times pursuant to the decree, but the wife had insulted him and refused to reside with him. Since after passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the parties did not reside together and have no physical relations, a decree of divorce be passed.

(3.) WE have heard the submissions advanced before us. Learned counsel for the respondent wife could not explain as to what were the reasons for non appearance of the wife in the Family Court.