Skip to content


Sgt. Anpian J. Vs. Zilla and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMatrimonial Reference No. 4 of 1983
Judge
Reported inAIR1986P& H196
ActsDivorce Act, 1869 - Sections 17 and 32
AppellantSgt. Anpian J.
RespondentZilla and anr.
Excerpt:
.....and that out of their wedlock one male child was born on 1st feb. it has been further averred that after the grant of the aforesaid decree in his favour the respondent did not join him to resume cohabitation with him in spite of the best efforts made by him. the conclusion of the district judge that the respondent withdrew from the society of the petitioners without a reasonable cause and that despite the passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights the respondent has not resumed cohabitation with the petitioners are well-merited......divorce act, 1869, for the confirmation of an ex parte decree of divorce granted by the learned district judge, chandigarh, vide his judgment dt. 2nd may 1983, dissolving the marriage between the petitioners (husband) and the respondent.2. sergeant anpian j. presented a petition against his wife zilla respondent for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce. it was averred in the petition that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 5th april 178, according to the christian rites, that after the marriage the petitioners treated the respondent with love and affection and that out of their wedlock one male child was born on 1st feb., 1979. thereafter, the respondent withdrew from the society of the petitioners without any reasonable excuse. he made a number of.....
Judgment:

K.P.S. Sandhu, J.

1. This is a reference under S. 17 of the Divorce Act, 1869, for the confirmation of an ex parte decree of divorce granted by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh, vide his judgment dt. 2nd May 1983, dissolving the marriage between the petitioners (husband) and the respondent.

2. Sergeant Anpian J. Presented a petition against his wife Zilla respondent for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce. It was averred in the petition that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 5th April 178, according to the Christian rites, that after the marriage the petitioners treated the respondent with love and affection and that out of their wedlock one male child was born on 1st Feb., 1979. Thereafter, the respondent withdrew from the society of the petitioners without any reasonable excuse. He made a number of attempts to bring the respondent to his house, but the attitude of the respondent was such which gave an indication that she was out to withdraw form the society of the petitioners without any reasonable cause. Ultimately, the petitioners filed a petition under S. 32 of the Divorce Act against the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights and vide judgment dt 14th Nov., 1980, the District Judge, Chandigarh, granted him a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent. It has been further averred that after the grant of the aforesaid decree in his favour the respondent did not join him to resume cohabitation with him in spite of the best efforts made by him. He thus prayed that since the statutory period as required under the law had passed and there was no hope of the respondent joining him, he be granted a decree of divorce by dissolution of his marriage with the respondent.

3. The respondent refused to accept the notice in this petition. On 27th Jan., 1983 the District Judge ordered ex parte proceedings against the respondent.

4. The petitioners appeared as his own witness as PW 1 and reiterated the position taken by him in the petition. He placed on record Exhibit P1 a photostatic copy of the duly attested judgment of the District Judge dated 14th Nov., 1980 granting the petitioners a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

5. Notice of this reference was given to the respondent and she was served but she is present neither in person nor through a counsel. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record.

6. Since the respondent refused serve and did not appear before the district judge, so we are of the view that the learned District Judge has rightly placed reliance on the unrebutted testimony of the petitioners. The conclusion of the district Judge that the respondent withdrew from the society of the petitioners without a reasonable cause and that despite the passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights the respondent has not resumed cohabitation with the petitioners are well-merited.

7. In the result, we allow this reference and confirm the decree of divorce passed by District Judge, Chandigarh. there shall be no order as to costs.

8. Reference allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //