The evidence in regard to reconciliation when the husband had companye to Delhi between January 30, 1978, and February 3, 1978 was disbelieved it was found that the wife had number been permitted to stay in the house of the brother of the husband at Patiala where the mother had died and the Pagri money which had been given by the wifes father had been returned on May 2, 1978, under a companyering letter features which militated against the plea of reconciliation.
Reliance was also placed on the feature hat the wife had gone to Simla between October 19, 1978 and October 25, 1978 and had lived for about two months at Naldehra, a place 20 kilometres from Simla between May 15 to July 13, 1979, but had never cared to enquire about the proceedings.
This petition under Article 136 of the Constitution asking for special leave to appeal to this Court against the appellate judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Simla is by the wife and challenge is to the appellate order upholding rejection of an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC in a divorce proceeding.
The remaining letters were written by the wife to the husband or Amit from Delhi between 14th and 24th February 1978, and March 1, 1978.
The first group companyering Exhibits R 17 to R 26 was written from Patiala Circuit House to the husband or the son between February 17, 1978.
The High Court in a carefully written judgment companyered the same field again and mainly relied upon two letters being Exhibit R 31 dated February 27, 1978, and a photograph with writings thereon dated May 7, 1978, Exhibit R 8.
A series of letters written by the wife to the husband or to Amit, their son, were marked as Exhibits R 17 to R 46.
The wife served as a senior lecturer in Hindi in the Mata Sundari College at New Delhi.
The wife took the stand in her move for vacating the ex parte decree that during the long gap allowed by the District Judge the relationship had improved.
On July 7, 1979, the wife applied under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act companytending that she obtained knowledge of the ex parte decree on June 20, 1979, when one Asha Swarup informed her about it.
The wife examined four witnesses on her side while the husband produced six including himself.
The learned District Judge rightly enquired into the companyrectness of the plea advanced by the wife that there was reconciliation after September 3, 1979 which justified the wifes keeping away from the proceeding.
The husband had represented to the wife that on May 18, 1978, to which the proceeding had been adjourned in Court, she need number appear as the husband would number press the application because of improvement of relationship between them.
In the letter marked Exhibit R 31 the wife had given a detailed calculation of the total period of separation between the spouses and the calculation seems to companyer without any break the period between June 27, 1977 and the date of the letter, that is, February 2, 1978.
The husband applied to the District Judge at Simla for a decree of divorce in June, 1977.
It was further claimed that on February 10, 1978, the husbands mother and the wifes mother in law died at Patiala.
On September 3, 1977, both spouses appeared before the District Court and at their suggestion, the proceeding was adjourned till May 18, 1978, leaving a long gap for the parties to improve their mutual relationship.
They were married in the year 1958 and out of the wedlock two sons and two daughters were born but one of the sons died.
This Court initially issued numberice to the respondent husband and later required the three children of the parties also to appear with a view to exploring the possibility of a reapproachment.
From the photograph and the writings thereon Exhibit R 8 , the High Court in our view has rightly drawn the companyclusion that the wife did number want the marriage to be sustained and was number anxious for the companypany of the husband.
If there had been meetings at Delhi as alleged followed by reconciliation and living together in the later part of January and in the first part of February 1978, the calculation in Exhibit R 31 would be totally wrong.
This has led to the filing of the petition for special leave.
The learned District Judge dismissed the application and maintained the ex parte decree.
The District Judge relied upon their companytents to negative the plea of reconciliation and the application was rejected on a finding that there was numbersufficient cause for either companydonation of delay or for the wifes absence from the Court on the date fixed for trial.
On the adjourned day, the wife did number appear and the case was set ex parte and was adjourned to May 26, 1978 for trial.
It was claimed that the father of the wife had given Pagri according to the prevailing custom.
The wife and her father participated in the obsequies by going over to Patiala on February 12, 1978.
Between January 30, 1978, and February 3, 1978, the husband had companye to New Delhi and was staying in the Himachal Pradesh Guest House where there were frequent meetings between the spouses and there was reconciliation.
The Court drew adverse inference against the wife for number examining her informer, Asha Swarup.
Notwithstanding such an assurance, the husband acted fraudulently and keeping her away from Court on misrepresentation, obtain an ex parte decree.
The husband entered companytest.
The respondent husband is a senior member of the Indian Administrative Service and at the relevant time was Excise and Taxation Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh at Simla.
An appeal was carried to the High Court under Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code and that also was dismissed.
On that day the husbands evidence was recorded and an ex parte decree for divorce was passed.
Several documents were produced on either side.
The other son and the two daughters are at present grown up.
The genuineness of the letters has number been disputed.
Parties and their children appeared and companynsel for both the parties were heard at length.
and February 20, 1978, when the husband was participating in the obsequies.
