9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Dissolution of marriage. 2. Failure to comply with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. 3. Allegations of cruelty. 4. Reconciliation efforts. 5. Compliance with the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Dissolution of Marriage: The present appeal arises from a suit for the dissolution of marriage instituted by the respondent husband against the appellant wife. The husband sought a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground that the wife failed to comply with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights for a period of two years. 2. Failure to Comply with the Decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights: The husband alleged that the wife did not return to his house despite a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The High Court had decreed that the wife should return to the husband's house, though not necessarily at Naihati, and render conjugal rights. The husband admitted in his cross-examination that he made no attempt to bring his wife back after the decree, did not send any letters, and made no inquiries about her. 3. Allegations of Cruelty: The wife resisted the suit on the grounds of cruel treatment during her short stay at the husband's family dwelling house in Naihati. She alleged that she faced incessant torture, humiliation, and neglect. The trial court initially dismissed the suit based on these allegations of cruelty. The High Court, however, did not delve into the merits of these allegations but used the phrase "not necessarily at Naihati" to indicate that the husband should set up a separate matrimonial home to facilitate the wife's return. 4. Reconciliation Efforts: The High Court had suspended the execution of the decree for three months to allow for reconciliation. The wife and her relatives made attempts to reconcile, but they received no response from the husband or his family. The wife also sent letters expressing her willingness to live with the husband, though not at Naihati. These letters were presumed to have been received by the husband based on certificates of posting, but he denied receiving them. 5. Compliance with the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: The High Court emphasized that the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was primarily to give a fair trial to the husband's offer to take back the wife. The husband was expected to take proactive steps to facilitate the wife's return, which he failed to do. The court concluded that the wife did not fail to comply with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, as the husband did not maintain his offer or make necessary arrangements for her return. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside. The petition for divorce filed by the husband was dismissed. The wife was awarded costs throughout, and any amount paid by the husband towards litigation expenses was to be considered in assessing the costs to be paid by him.
|
