1 was number available to the respondent The Additional District Judge accordingly allowed the petition and granted the petitioner a decree of divorce as prayed for.
An appeal from this decision taken by the husband was summarily dismissed by the Delhi High Court.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 19 10 1976 of the Delhi High Court in F.A.0.,
Section 13 IA ii as it stood at the material time reads Either party to a marriage, whether solemnized before or after the companymencement of this Act, may also present a petition for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground x x that there has been numberrestitution of companyjugal rights as between the parties to the marriage for a period of two years or upwards after the passing of a decree for restitution of companyjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties.
A little over two years after that decree was passed, on October 28, 1975 she presented a petition under section 13 IA ii of the Act in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Her husband, the appellant before us, in his written statement admitted that there had been numberrestitution of companyjugal rights between the parties after the passing of the decree in the earlier pro ceeding, but stated that he made attempts to companyply with the decree for restitution of companyjugal rights by writing several registered letters to the petitioner and otherwise inviting her to live with him.
949 of 1977.
The provision was amended in 1976 reducing the period of two years to one year, but this amendment is number relevant to the present companytroversy.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by GUPTA, J. On her application made under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the respondent was granted a decree for restitution of companyjugal rights by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Delhi on August 27, 1973.
He companyplained that the petitioner refused to receive some of the letters and never replied to those which she received, and according to him the petitioner has herself prevented the restitution of companyjugal rights she prayed for and number seeks to make a capital out of her own wrong.
Naunit Lal, R. K. Baweja and Miss Lalita Kohli, for the Appellant.
This additional issue was heard as a preliminary issue.
The Additional District Judge, Delhi, who heard the matter, relying on a Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court reported in I.L.R. 1971 1 Delhi 6, Ram Kali v. Gopal Dass , and a later decision of a learned single Judge of that companyrt reported in I.L.R. 1076 1 Delhi 725, Gajna Devi v. Purshotam Giri held that numbersuch circumstance has been alleged in the instant case from which it companyld be said that the petitioner was trying to take advantage of her own wrong and, therefore, the objection companyered by issue No.
170 of 1976.
Subsequently the following additional issue was also framed Whether the objection companyered by issue No.
L. Watel, C. R. Somasekharan, R. Watel and M. S. Ganesh, for the Respondent.
