R.P.SETHI, J. - (1.) CONTRARY to their pleadings and apparently conciliatory gestures made by the parties they have prolonged this litigation for over a decade. The litigation has been perpetuated in futility by the casual approach adopted by the Trial Court in dealing with the matter of matrimonial dispute between the parties. Whereas the wife has been pretending to be interested in rehabilitation of conjugal relations the husband has shown his over enthusiasm of restoration of the matrimonial ties when he conceded a decree of restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the wife. However, none of the patties appear to be satisfied with the relief granted as the wife herself filed an appeal against the decree granted in her favour and the husband has filed a petition for divorce despite the conceded prayer of his wife for restitution of matrimonial obligations. The consistent efforts made by the Court for conciliation between the parties have failed on account of the adamant attitude adopted by the spouse.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are that the parties were married on 1. 3. 1979 and out of the wed-lock a daughter namely Leena was born on 16. 4. 1980. The appellant-wife alleged that parents of the husband being greedy started torturing and mal-treating her on the alleged ground of insufficiency of dowry culminating in the respondents withdrawal from her society with effect from 9. 12. 1980 with the result that she filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the 'act') for restitution of conjugal rights. The petition was contested by the respondent-husband who filed a counter-claim under Section 23-A of the Act for seeking divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty attributed to the wife, allegedly as a counter blast to the prayer of the petitioner. None of the parties appear to be genuinely interested in the prosecution of their cases as is evident from the various adjournments granted in the case for production of evidence. On 29. 7. 1983 the Counsel for the appellant made a statement before the Court that she had not contacted him and that he had no objection if the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. The respondent-husband who had sought divorce in his counter-claim opposed the prayer of the wife for dismissal of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights and instead prayed that a decree be granted in her favour. The Trial Court obliged the husband and passed a decree in favour of the wife apparently affording an opportunity to the husband to subsequently file a petition for divorce. When the appellant filed an appeal against the judgment passed in her favour, the respondent-husband again filed cross-objections under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the 'code') praying therein that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court be reversed and a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty be passed in his favour. The appeal of the appellant-wife was dismissed vide the judgment impugned in this Letters Patent Appeal alongwith the cross-objections which were not pressed.
(3.) WE have also made efforts for reconciliation between the parties but without any result.;