G.C. Mital, J. - (1.) In spite of service, the respondent has not put in appearance. Accordingly, I proceed to decide this appeal ex parte. JUDGEMENT The parties were married way back on 14-12-1974 and out of the wedlock there was no issue. On 19-9-1981 the wife filed a petition under Sec. 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) for judicial separation on the plea that about two months back she was turned out of the house by her husband in three clothes and all the articles of dowry were detained by him. She also pleaded that she had throughout been mal-treated and was being harassed as she could not bear a child. The husband contested the petition and denied the allegations levelled against him and put the blame on the wife. He further pleaded that it was harmful and injurious for him to live with the wife. On the contest of the parties, the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the respondent treated the applicant so as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner ? O.P.A. 2. Relief. On the evidence led in the case, the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 31-8-1984 dismissed the wife's petition for judicial separation. This is wife's appeal in this Court. It is urged by the learned counsel for the wife that in the written statement, the husband had stated after denying the allegations of the wife and putting all blame on her, that the wife may be granted the relief asked for by her. The Court below considered this matter but in view of Sec. 23 of the Act, came to the conclusion that there was a bar to grant relief to the petitioner with the consent of the respondent, and it was for the wife to establish cruelty independently and then to seek relief for judicial separation. This view of the Court below has been challenged by the learned counsel for the wife as being illegal and particularly in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1984 SC 1560 .
(2.) After considering the matter, I am of the view that it is a fit case for the grant of a decree for judicial separation as prayed for on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The wife has put the blame on the husband and the husband has put the blame on the wife and both of them are living separately for sufficiently long time. The husband has no opposition to the grant of a decree for judicial separation to the wife. The dictum in Deokinandan Prasad's case (supra) supports the argument of the counsel for the wife that there is no impediment in the way of the Court under Sec. 23 of the Act in not granting the decree for judicial separation on the peculiar facts as are shown in this case.
(3.) For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the Court below are set aside and a decree for judicial separation is granted to the wife against the husband but without any order as to costs. Appeal allowed.;