I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) The respondent husband has succeeded in securing a decree of divorce against the appellant wife from the Court of Additional District Judge. Jullundur. She appeals.
(2.) The parties to the litigation were married on May 16, 1976 and out of the wedlock, twins sons named as Raja and Rana Inderjit Singh were born on Aug. 21, 1978. They had their first round of litigation when the husband brought a similar petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on similar grounds in the Court of Additional District Judge, Jullundur in Aug. 1979, hut the said petition was dismissed on Jan. 5, 1981 vide judgment Exhibit P. 9. which concededly has assumed finality. In this petition again most of the acts and omissions attributed to the wife as instances of cruelty towards the husband pertain to the period prior to the year 1981. I, therefore, do not feel the necessity of going into these facts exhaustively as to my mind the pleas of the husband negatived vide judgment Exhibit P.9, are no more available to him. The trial Court while passing the impugned judgment appears to have suffered from the impression that the earlier petition of the husband under section 13 of the Act which too, as already indicated, was based on the ground of cruelty attributed to the wife, was dismissed for the reason that the husband had condoned these acts of cruelty. This is so very clear from the following observations made in this judgment: "A careful perusal of the judgment will show that it has discussed upto the stage when the petitioner and the respondent had remained together in a separate house in the Central Town. The case of the petitioner for divorce had been dismissed on the ground that he had condoned the cruelty, it any, on the part of the respondent. Therefore, here I will discuss only the circumstances which cropped up afterwards. There can be no doubt that if the Cruelty on the part of the respondent was condoned by the petitioner at any stage, such cruelty could be revived also be the respondent. It is now to be seen whether the respondent revived any cruelty after her cruelty had been condoned by the petitioner as held vide judgment Ex. P.9."
(3.) Then after discussing the evidence on record, the Court in the penultimate paragraph (No. 23), concluded thus: "In the result, I feel that the petitioner has been able to prove a case that the respondent revived her cruelty even after the previous case of divorce brought by the petitioner had been dismissed and deserted the petitioner. The issues is, therefore, decided in favour of the petitioner.";