D.V. Sehgal, J. - (1.) This appeal by the wife-appellant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.10.1984 of the learned District Judge, Sonepat, allowing a petition of the husband-respondent under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage At (hereinafter called the Act') and dissolving the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are that marriage between the parties was solemnised on 4.7.1982. Alleging that there has been no cohabitation between the parties and the appellant had withdraw from his society, the respondent filed a petition under section 9 of the Act with was allowed and a decree for restitution of conjugal right was passed in his favour and against the appellant on 7.10.1983. After expiry of the statutory period of one year he filed the instant petition under section 13(1-A)(ii) of the Act on 10.10.1984 seeking a decree of divorce on the ground that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights between the parties for a period of one year after the decree dated 7.10.1983. He further alleged that the appellant had intentionally not complied with the decree.
(3.) The appellant contested the petition. She denied that there had been no cohabitation between the parties after the passing of the decree dated 7.10.1983. She alleged that on the persuasion of her father, her brother Jawahar Lal and her brother-in-law, other relations and respectables,the respondent took her to his house and she lived with him as his wife. The parties cohabited together as husband and wife from November/December, 1983 April, 1984 when the respondent under the influence of liquor abused her, gave her severe beating, taunted her of being barren and not being able to produce any issue and refused to keep her. She stated that in April, 1984 she was forced by the respondent to leave his house in a miserable condition.and under compulsion of circumstances she had to shift to her parental home. She thus asserted cohabitation and resumption of conjugal rights from Nov., 1983 to April, 1984 and contended that the respondent was not entitled to a decree of divorce.;