O P MEHTA Vs. SAROJ MEHTA
LAWS(DLH)-1983-5-36
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on May 27,1983

O.P.MEHTA Appellant
VERSUS
SAROJ MEHTA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAM KALI VS. GOPAL DASS [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

BALABHADRA PRADHAN VS. SUNDARIMANI DEVI [LAWS(ORI)-1994-11-16] [RELIED ON]
SRI NITYANANDA KARMI VS. SMT. KUM KUM KARMI [LAWS(CAL)-2002-9-71] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

N.N. Goswami, J. - (1.)This appeal by the husband is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27/8/1979 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby his petition under Section 13(1-A) of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce on the ground that there has not been a resumption of cohabitation between the parties for a period of one year after the passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights.
(2.)The parties were married at Delhi on 18/2/1964 in accordance with Hindu rites. Two children were born out of the wedlock and both those children are with the respondent. The appellant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 3/6/1974 against the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights. The petition filed by the appellant was decreed on 30-5-75. The appellant thereafter on 26/7/1976 filed the present petition for a decree of divorce on the ground that there has been no resumption of cohabitation between the parties for a period of more than one year fro {m the passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant also mentioned in his petition that on 15/10/1975 i.e. just about 41 months after the passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights he had filed another petition for a decree of divorce alleging adultery against the respondent.
(3.)The respondent contested the petition and admitted the factum of marriage, the birth of the children as also the filing of a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and the decree passed thereon. She also admitted that there had not been any resumption of cohabitation between the parties for a period of one year after the passing of the decree. She further pleaded that soon after the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed, the appellant had filed petition for divorce alging adultery against her and in these circumstances the respondent was justified in not resuming cohabitation with the petitioner for the period of one year after the passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. She also pleaded that the appellant cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong and she was fully justified in not resuming cohabitation.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.