SRIKANTA Vs. DEEN DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil misc. appeal by the wife is directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Merta dissolving the marriage and awarding a decree for divorce. The relevant facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties took place on 16 -4 -1960. The parties lived together and two daughters were born to them. On 9 -7 -76 the appellant left her husband & went away to Bombay and began residing with her brother. The respondent went to Bombay and made efforts to bring her back from Bombay and to live with him. When the efforts failed the respondent filed an application for judicial separation under Sec. 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act. That application was allowed and a decree for judicial separation was passed in favour of the respondent and against the appellant on 30 -11 -1972. The respondent thereafter moved an application under Sec. 13(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act with the prayer that the marriage may be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that there has been no resumption of cohabitation between the parties for a period of more than two years after the passing of the decree for judicial separation. The appellant contested the application on the ground that she has always been ready and willing to live with her husband. She however, admitted passing of the decree for judicial separation against her. She did not specifically deny the allegation that there was no resumption of cohabitation between the parties for a period of more than two years after the passing of the decree for judicial separation. The appellant contested the application on the ground that she has always been ready and willing to live with her husband. She however, admitted passing of the decree for judicial separation against her. She did not specifically deny the allegation that there was no resumption of cohabitation between the parties for a period of more than two years after passing of the decree. The learned District Judge made an effort for reconciliation but he failed in his attempt. Ultimately the learned District Judge dissolved the marriage and granted a decree of divorce against the appellant. It is against this order that the wife has filed this appeal.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. Sec. 13(1A) provides that either party to a marriage may present a petition for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground that there has been no resumption of cohabitation between the parties to the marriage for a period of two years after the passing of a decree for judicial separation in a proceeding in which they were parties. In the present case the decree for judicial separation was passed on 30 -11 -72. Again there is not the slightest doubt that there has been no resumption of cohabitation between the parties for more than two years after the passing of the decree for judicial separation. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that so far as the appellant is concerned she is even now ready and willing to live with her husband and cohabit with him. There is no substance in the above contention. The appellant's willingness to live with her husband and cohabit with him after the expiry of two years from the date of judicial separation is of no consequence. There is nothing to show that during the period of two years alter the passing of the decree for judicial separation the appellant ever showed her willingness to live with her husband in the circumstances the learned District Judge rightly dissolved the marriage and awarded a decree for divorce. The is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed. Having regard to the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs in this Court.