Nasir Ullah Beg - (1.) THIS is a revision application arising out of the plaintiff's suit for dissolution of marriage.
(2.) THE suit was brought by the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant had after his marriage with the plaintiff treated her cruelly. THE plaintiff who was the wife levelled various charges-against the defendant. THE defendant was alleged to have ill-treated her. It was also alleged that the defendant was guilty of adultery and immorality. THE plaintiff claimed a decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of a custom prevalent in the Murao community to which the parties belonged and according to which the wife was entitled to divorce the husband. THE defendant denied the allegations made by the plaintiff against him. THE case of the defendant was that the plaintiff used to give away grain to her parents. THE defendant took objection to it and started keeping a watch over it. This annoyed the plaintiff who deserted the defendant and the present suit is the result of the strained relations between the parties as a result of the above conduct of the plaintiff. THE defendant further denied that any custom as alleged by the plaintiff existed. On the other hand he set up a counter-custom which gave a right of divorce not to the wife but to the husband. In the alternative the defendant pleaded that even if any such custom was proved, it would be against public policy. After the issues were framed in the suit, the whole case was with the agreement of the parties referred to the arbitration of Shri Ajodhia Prasad, a local pleader. After considering the case of the parties the arbitrator gave his award on 9-12-1947. The arbitrator came to the conclusion that: "there is no custom giving a general right to a wife to claim dissolution at her sweet will. Such custom appears opposed to public morality and the spirit of Hindu Law. A custom giving a restricted right to a wife to claim such relief in special circumstances may be valid and enforceable. ' He found that the relations between the parties were not happy. His award shows that he tried to persuade the defendant to divorce the plaintiff but the defendant refused to do it and he goes on to decide the matter thus : "Under the circumstances of the case the best solution in the interest of the parties will be not to dissolve the marriage forthwith but give some time to the parties to reconsider the whole situation and their interests. For that end in view I direst that defendant should bring a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against the plaintiff within a year from today where parties will have scope to substantiate their charges and counter-charges against each other. In case defendant succeeds in getting the relief of restitution of conjugal rights, the marriage tie will remain intact and the present suit will stand dismissed but if the defendants's suit is rejected and he is disallowed that relief by the Court or if the plaintiff fails to bring the suit, the marriage will stand dissolved thereafter." On 8-1-1948, the defendant filed objections to this award on the ground that this award was invalid. On 4-2-1948, the Court passed an order, the operative part of which runs as follows : ' "The objections are dismissed. The suit is decreed in terms of the arbitrator's award. The award shall form a part of the decree." The defendant filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree. The appellate Court allowed the appeal, upheld the objections of the defendant and remanded the suit to the trial Court with the direction that the said Court shall remit the award to the arbitrator for reconsideration who shall modify it by excluding the direction given by him to the defendant regarding the filing of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and shall take into consideration the questions left undecided by him and then file afresh award in definite terms. The learned Munsif would then proceed to decide the case according to law.
(3.) AGAINST the judgment of the lower Court allowing the appeal the plaintiff Mt. Ishwar Dei has filed this revision.;