l. The appellant in this appeal is the wife whose suit for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent her husband, was decreed by the trial court but was dismissed on appeal by the lower appellate court.

2. The suit was brought by her u/s 2(ii), (iv), and (viii)of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 2003, herinafter to be referred to as Act. on the allegation that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized nearly six year prior to the institution of the suit. Hardly two years has passed, when she was given a severe beating by the respondent and was turned out of her matrimonial home, after snatching all ornaments and clothes. She sent a number of persons to the respondent-to persuade him to take her back to his fold and provide her maintenance, but he refused to do so and did not resume cohabitation with her, nor did he provided any maintenance to her ever since she was turned out by him.

3. The respondent denied all these allegations and resisted the suit alleging that the appellant had left his house of her own free will in furtherance of plan, and had refused to return even after he had gone himself and had also sent a number, of persons to her to persuade her to come back to his house. She had also taken all clothes and ornaments with her. He was willing to provide her all the maintenance and resume matrimonial relations with her, provided she too was prepared to live with him.

4. This controversy gave rise to a number of issues, out of which Issues No : 1 and 4 related to cruelty issues No :2 and 3 to failure of maintenance despite demand, and issue No ; 5 to failure to resume cohabitation. The parties joined the issue and led evidence on them, on consideration whereof the trial court found against the appellant on issue Nos : 1, 4, and 5, but found in her favour on Issues No:1 and 3, and consequently passed the decree prayed for in favour of the appellant

5. On appeal the learned District Judge-refused to hear the Appellant on the finding recorded by the trial court on issues Nos:1, 4 and 5 on the ground that the cross-objection taken by her in regard to these findings was barred by time and there by confirmed the finding of the trial court on these issues. He however, upset its findings on Issues Nos : 2 and 3 and dismissed the appellants suit by holding that even though the respondents had faild to maintain her for a period of more than two years, yet she was not entitlled to any decree, for she had failed to prove that she had made any demand to the respondent to provide her maintenance.

6. As before the lower appellate court, findings of the trial court on Issues No: 1, 4 and 5 relating to cruelty and failure to resume cohabitation for a period of three years were attacked before me as well. At this juncture, it is necessary to point out that lower appellate court committed an error of law in refusing to hear the appellant on these findings. The appellant had claimed the decree on three grounds: viz failure of maintenance for a period of not less than two years, and failure to resume cohabitation for a period of three years, Out of these, the trial court found one only ground i.e. failure of maintenance in her favour, and granted the decree prayed for on this ground simpliciter, There was thus no part of the decree which it could be said as passed by the trial court against the appellant. She had claimed a decree for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent, which was granted in her favour. She thus got all that she had asked for: no matter that she got it on one ground only, or on all the grounds pleaded by her. No part of the decree being thus against the appellant, she was not required to take any cross-objection against any part of it, and could have supported the same before the lower appellate court on the two grounds found against her by the trial court by assailing its findings on them. The bar contained in order 41 Rule 22 Civil Pr: Code was not attracte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document