CHANCHAL SHARMA Vs. GANGA RAM SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant wife has filed this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the 'act') against a decree of divorce under Section 13 (1-A) (i) of the Act.

(2.) ON 23-11-1979, the respondent filed petition for divorce on the allegations that their marriage was solemnised on 5-2-1976 at Khamgaon, District Buldhana, State of Maharashtra whereafter she came to reside with him at Raipur. She stayed with him hardly for 3-4 days. During the stay, she did not permit him to consummate the marriage. She confessed that she was infatuated to some boy-friend, and led the life of unchastity with him. After she was taken away by her parents, he learnt that she carried on adulterous relations with several boy friends and lastly that she had withdrawn herself from his society for reasons best known to her. He therefore prayed for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce on grounds under Section 13 (1a) (i) and (ii) of the Act. On 14-10-1981, the respondent amended the petition claiming divorce under Section 13 (1a) (i) of the Act on the plea that there has been no resumption cohabitation between them for a period of one year after the passing of decree for judicial separation in H. M. P. No. 63/78, on 22-8-1980, by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon.

(3.) THE appellant denied all adverse allegations made against her in the petition. She alleged that the respondent sent her back to her parents for no fault of her and all attempts towards reconciliation proved futile. She denied having any relation with any boy friend or that she was leading an adulterous life. In 1978, she went to Raipur to resume matrimonial life, but had to return back. All these allegations were found to be false in the judgment rendered on her petition for judicial separation and therefore those grounds were not available to him. In reply to the ground based on decree for judicial separation she submitted that in second week of April, 1981, when she cams to Raipur for reconciliation, the respondent cohabitated with her. She also pleaded that the decree for judicial separation is void and a nullity since it was passed without any legal evidence.