Jeet Kumar vs Rama Kumari

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, dated 5.5.1987, who had

dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner Jeet Kumar u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce.

The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Rama Kumari, respondent, had filed a petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the restitution of

conjugal rights which was decreed on 4.9.1985. Even after the passing of the decree, no cohabitation had taken place between the parties and the

decree was not complied with for more than a year. Thereafter Jeet Kumar, appellant, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, had filed a petition

u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the main ground that after passing of decree for restitution

of conjugal rights, the marriage had not been consummated as the parties were living separately and period of more than one year from date of

passing of decree had lapsed. As such, the petitioner was entitled to a decree of divorce.

The petition was resisted by the respondent and the allegations levelled therein were denied by her.

The main issue before the Matrimonial Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground mentioned in the

petition. The onus to prove the issue was on the petitioner who failed to discharge the .same. Consequently, the divorce petition was dismissed.

Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment, the petitioner has filed the present appeal.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that since there has been no cohabitation between the parties after the passing of the decree for

restitution of conjugal rights and a period of more than one year had passed, the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce.

On the other hand, the plea raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent-wife is that the petitioner had not complied with the decree of

restitution of conjugal rights and had withdrawn from the society of the respondent-wife without reasonable excuse.

Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the case file, I am convinced that it is the

respondent-wife who was the aggrieved party in this case. She had filed a petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights

which was decreed by the District Judge, Rohtak on 4.9.1985. The said decree was not complied with by the petitioner for the reasons best

known to him. Apparently, the petitioner had withdrawn from the company of his wife without reasonable excuse. Thus, by no stretch of

imagination, it can be held that respondent is guilty of desertion in any manner. The petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own

wrongs.

I hardly find any illegality or infirmity in the well reasoned judgment of the Matrimonial Court, Consequently, the appeal is dismissed being

devoid of any merit. No order as to costs.