Gurdip Kaur vs Pritam Singh

Gokal Chand Mital, J.—Counsel for the husband had paid Rs 800/- to Miss Ritu Bahri, counsel for the wife towards the balance maintenance amount due to the wife.

On 30.4.1987, the matter was got compromised between the parties with the assistance of certain Advocates and they agreed to live together. The husband took the wife with him from the Court at about 3-00 P.M. and after the Court time was over, the parties come back and reported to the Court Secretary that the wife was not prepared to go with the husband. The matter was taken up on the following day. On the following day, that is 1.5.1987 the wife made a categorical statement that she was not prepared to go with the husband as she apprehended danger to her life After the reconciliation failed, the case was posted for hearing and now has come up before this Court.

After hearing the counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I am of the view there is no scope for interference in this appeal filed by the wife against judgment and decree of the Court below granting judicial separation.

The husband was serving in Army at the time of marriage which took place in March, 1979. Out of the wedlock a child was born. The wife lived with him for about a year and thereafter deserted the matrimonial home. After being relieved from Army in 1985, the husband filed petition for divorce on the ground of desertion of wife for more than two year when his efforts to bring her brack failed.

The wife contested the petition and pleaded that about 11/2 years after the marriage, she was turned out of the house and put the blame on the husband and pleaded that divorce petition was counter blast to her application for grant of maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C.

On the contest of the parties, the following issues were framed:

Whether the Respondent has deserted the Petitioner for a continuous period of 2 years ? OPA

Relief.

On the evidence led in the case, the Court below by judgment and decree dated 24.1.1986, granted decree for judicial separation by invoking the provisions of Section 13(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955(sic) keeping in view of the peculiar facts of the case. This is wife''s appeal.

After going through the statements of the parties, I am of the view that the statement of the husband is more reliable as compared to the statement of wife. The wife has not levelled any allegation against the husband which may justify leaving the matrimonial home or to say in Court on 1.5.1987 that she apprehended danger to her life. Mother of the husband had died before the marriage and father died about eight months after the marriage. Moreover, after release from Army there was no justification for the wife to live away from her husband. On these peculiar facts when there is not much of dispute or allegations against each other, the Court below was justified in granting decree for judicial separation instead of divorce to give an opportunity to patch up if possible. So far they have not patched up. May be that better sense will prevail on the wife to come back to the matrimonial home.

For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.