N. C. KOCHHAR, J. - (1.) THIS appeal, under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'), is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28-7-87 of Shri Shanker Lal Jain, District Judge, Merta, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant-husband for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent.
(2.) THE parties were married at Nagour on 18. 6. 79 according to Hindu rites and customs and after marriage they co-habitated as husband and wife at the house of the appellant in Nagour on 21. 10,81, the appellant presented a petition under clauses (i) and (i) (a) of sub section (1) of section 13 of the Act which-he amended on 20. 3. 84. THE petition was filed on thegrounds that after the solemnization of her marriage with the appellant, the respondent had been having sexual intercourse with persons other than the appellant and had treated the appellant with cruelty. THE allegations of the appellant were denied by the respondent in her written statement and she pleaded that false charges were being levelled against her so that the appellant could get rid of her and could ramarry with a girl who could bring him sufficient dowry. THE learned trial court after recording the evidence, held that the appellant had failed to prove the charges against the respondent and has consequently dismissed the petition filed by the appellant. Hence this appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. I need not discuss the evidence produced by the parties in support of their respective cases as after the parties, counsel had taken me through the pleadings and the evidence produced on record, the learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments very fairly conceded that the findings of the learned trial court that neither of the two charges had been proved by the appellant against the respondent, could not be assailed. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that admittedly the parties have been living apart since 13. 6. 81 and there has been no co-habitation between them since then and as such it should be held that the marriage between the parties had broken down irritrievably and is liable to be dissolved on this ground. Reliance has been placed on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this court is case of Priti Parihar vs. Kailash Singh (1 ). The Act was enacted in 1955 and certain amendments were made therein by Act No. 68 of 1976. The ground on which the divorce can be granted by the court are mentioned in the Act and it is not disputed that the ground of irritrievable break down of marriage is not one of the grounds mentioned in the Act. Inspite of the recommendations of the Law Commission in its 71st report, the legislature, in its wisdom, did not think it advisable to incorporate this ground in the Act. The court cannot dissolve the marriage on a ground which is not available under the Act. If any authority is neended for this purpose reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Reynold Rajamani vs. Union of India (2 ). The decision in Priti Parihar's case was on its own particular facts and if it is contended that it lays down that whenever the marriage between the parties breakes down, a decree of divorce should be J granted, the decision cannot be said to be a good law in view of what|has been held by the Supreme Court is in Reynold Rajamani's case (supra ).
(3.) NO other point has been raised before me. Consequently this appeal being without merits, is dismissed, with costs. .;