Gokal Chand Mital, J. - (1.) The parties were married way back on 14-10-1977. They lived together for about a year. Thereafter, wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (for short the Act'), in which she was granted a decree on 27-9-1980. It is the case of both the sides that the wife took execution of that decree. It is also the case of both the sides that the parties compromised the dispute during execution proceedings and agreed to live together. After that, there is some variance between the stand of the parties. According to the husband, the wife after coming out of the Court, did not accompany him and they did not live together, whereas the case of the wife is that she wanted to live with the husband and lived with him for two years and 9 months. The Court below did not accept this stand of the wife and gave a finding that there was no evidence on the record to show that any execution was taken out.
(2.) The husband's own statement is that execution application was filed, in which the parties compromised the matter and they agreed to live together. The finding of the Court below is clearly erroneous and is hereby reversed.
(3.) The stand of the wife that they lived together after restitution decree for two years and nine months' is not only supported by her own statement but also by the statements of P.W. 1 her husband and his father P.W. 2 coupled with the evidence of Chaman Lal, Sub-Inspector, office of the District Food and Supplies Controller, who appeared as R.W.1. Chaman Lal R.W. 1 stated in Court that in 1980 an application was made for the grant of ration card, in which the name of the wife was also mentioned. It is the case of the parties that they had separated a year after the marriage, i.e. somewhere in Oct., 1978. The restitution decree was passed in Sept., 1980, and the wife's case is that in execution thereof they had gone together. Her stand is fully supported by the fact that her name was included in the application filed by her father-in-law for issue of ration card in 1980 and her name was got deleted from the ration card on 6th Dec., 1984, during the pendency of the proceedings, started by the husband for getting divorce on the ground that the parties had not lived together after the passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. This aspect of the matter was not kept in view by the Court below, and that is, why, it recorded a wrong finding. Reversing the finding of the Court below, I hold that the parties lived together for a period of two years and nine months after the grant of decree for restitution of conjugal rights, with the result that the husband is not entitled to seek divorce under Sec. 13(1-A) (ii) of the Act.;