- (1.) THE appellant, Smt. Vijay Lakshmi @ Archana, is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2007 passed by the District Judge, Bikaner, whereby the learned Judge has granted a decree of judicial suppression, although she had sought divorce from her husband, the respondent.
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that 03.03.1995, marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized according to the Hindu rites and customs. During the wedlock, a child, Pradhyuman, was born. The appellant claimed that in 1999, the respondent had tortured her and her son for dowry. She was turned out of her matrimonial home. The appellant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., for maintenance. The respondent was directed to pay the maintenance amount to the appellant. However, the respondent has failed to do so. Therefore, an application was filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. In order to support its case, the appellant examined two witness. The respondent husband did not appear before the learned trial Court. The learned Judge proceed ex-parte against the respondent husband. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge, by order dated 18.10.2007, has granted a decree of judicial separation. Hence, this appeal before this Court. Mr. Mohit, Vyas, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that although the appellant had sought divorce under Section 13 of the Act, the learned Judge has merely granted a judicial separation under Section 10 of the Act. Secondly, Although the learned Judge concluded that the respondent husband had deserted the wife, still the learned Judge has not given a single reason for granting judicial separation in place of a complete divorce. Lastly, once the factum of desertion was established, the learned Judge ought to have granted the divorce on the said ground, instead of merely granting judicial separation. By order dated 28.08.2012, this Court clearly stated that in case Mr. O.P. Joshi, the learned counsel for the respondent, does not appear on the next date i.e., 5th September, 2012, this Court would have no option, but to proceed ex-parte against the respondent. Despite the said observation, even on 05.09.2012 and 10.09.2012, Mr. O.P. Joshi failed to appear before this Court. Therefore, this court does not have the benefit of any assistance on behalf of respondent. Hence, this Court has no option but to proceed ex- parte against the respondent. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment clearly reveals that the learned Judge had concluded that the respondent-husband had deserted the appellant-wife. Moreover, the learned Judge has not given a single reason for passing a decree for judicial suppression. Needless to say, the learned trial Court is required to give its reasons for its conclusions. However, in the present case, the learned Judge has failed to do so. Thus, the impugned judgment is a non- speaking one. Therefore, this Court quashes and sets aside the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2007. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The appellant, Vijay Lakshmi @ Archana, is granted divorce from her husband, Jagdish Chandra Vasu, on the ground of desertion. The decree shall be drawn up accordingly. ;