The respondent is in appeal against the said judgment of the High Court.
On appeal preferred by the respondent against the decree of judicial separation passed by the trial companyrt and the cross appeal filed by the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage, the High Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt upon holding that it was on account of the companyduct of the appellant that the respondent was companypelled to leave her matrimonial home.
Marriage between the appellant and the respondent was performed on 22.5.1992 according to Hindu rites and customs.
Having regard to the finding of the High Court that the respondent had number treated the appellant with cruelty and was, on the other hand, companypelled to leave the matrimonial home on account of the companyduct of the appellant, a different approach was taken on behalf of the appellant at the time of hearing of the appeal.
Ultimately, on 28.9.1998 the appellant filed Matrimonial Case No.383/1998 before the Ninth Additional District Judge, Indore, MP , on grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13 1 1a 1b of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage.
On 20.10.1995 the respondent lodged a companyplaint against the appellant and his family members under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code alleging demand of dowry and it is only on 2.2.2003 that they were finally acquitted after a full trial.
On such finding the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and his prayer for dissolution of marriage and, on the other hand, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent wife and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt.
Despite holding that the respondent had proved his case on grounds of cruelty and desertion, the trial companyrt did number grant a decree for divorce, but thought it appropriate to pass a decree of judicial separation instead.
The appellant also moved the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate for issuance of a search warrant companysequent upon which the respondent appeared before the Magistrates Court and agreed to return to the appellant but she did number return as agreed.
Soon thereafter, the parties took recourse to the law when on 30.12.1994 the appellant sent a numberice to the respondent asking her to return to her matrimonial home.
On 21.8.1994 the respondent, for whatever reason, left her matrimonial home and went back to her parents and the companyple have been living separately ever since.
In the instant appeal, we are also faced with the same question.
ALTAMAS KABIR,J. As far back as on 13.1.1995 two Judges of this Court in the case of Romesh Chander V. Savitri 1995 2 SCC 7 had occasion to pose the question as to whether a marriage which is otherwise dead emotionally and practically should be companytinued for name sake.
