The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, allowing for divorce by mutual consent after a period of living separately and mutual agreement to dissolve the marriage.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity, the Act) is directed against the judgment dated 2.2.1995 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala dismissing the petition preferred by the appellant seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Act.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the parties were united in the wedlock on 22.6.1986 at Ambala Cantt by performing Anand Karaj as per Sikh rites. They lived together after the marriage and co-habited. A male child, namely, Gagandeep Singh was born out of the wedlock on 10.3.1989 at Palampur where the appellant was posted as Junior Engineer.

3. The allegation levelled in the petition reveals that the respondent-wife was not interested in maintaining matrimonial relations with the appellant-husband since the very beginning. She had threatened to involve the appellant-husband and his family members in false criminal cases on numerous occasions. It has been alleged that the father of the respondent-wife concealed material facts with regard to her from the appellant-husband before marriage. Despite that, it is pleaded that the appellant-husband had tried to maintain matrimonial relationship. However, on 24.1.1992 the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home alongwith minor children voluntarily and had been living with her parents against the wishes of the appellant-husband. Efforts were made to bring back the respondent-wife to matrimonial home and a compromise was reduced to writing on 28.1.1992 at Sahara Counseling Centre, Ambala Cantt. The allegations is that despite that respondent-wife refused to accompany the appellant-husband. It is further alleged that the respondent-wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act and exparte decree was passed by the Additional District Judge on 2.6.1992. On the basis of allegation that the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife have been living separately since 24.1.1992 and also after the decree of restitution of conjugal rights was passed on 2.6.1992, a petition under Section 13 of the Act was instituted on 24.8.1993 claiming that the appellant-husband has become entitled to a decree of divorce.

4. The stand taken by the respondent-wife in her written statement filed before the Additional District Judge is that the petition is barred under 23 of the Act and the appellant-husband cannot be permitted to take benefit of his own wrongs. It has further been asserted that the petition is barred by principle of resjudicata. The allegations that the respondent-wife has threatened to initiate criminal proceedings against the appellant husband or any of his family members and that her father concealed material facts from the appellant-husband have been stoutly denied. It is asserted that the respondent-wife has been tortured and maltreated by the appellant-husband and was turned out of the matrimonial home on 24.1.1992 against her wishes. After 24.1.1992, she alongwith her minor son is living with her old parents. The allegation that compromise has been written at Sahara counseling Centre, Ambala Cantt and that she is employed as a teacher earning Rs. 2,500/- per month have been specifically denied. It is further stated that the appellant-husband was visiting the respondent-wife at her parental home and the marriage has been consummated as the appellant-husband stayed with the respondent-wife.

5. The Additional District Judge after framing various issues reached the conclusion that no ground for dissolving the marriage was made out and dismissed the divorce petition. A firm finding has been returned that the appellant-husband remained unable to prove that the respondent-wife deserted the appellant-husband without any sufficient cause. It was further held that no divorce could be granted to the appellant-husband on the ground of desertion by the respondent-wife without any just cause and that the claim was barred by principle of resjudicata. The Additional D