IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 02.07.2025 Date of decision: 08.07.2025 Maya Devi ..Appellant Versus Kailash Chand ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate for the respondent ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Brief facts:-

1. Through this appeal, the appellant (the respondent’s wife) assails the correctness of the judgment passed on 22.02.2017 whereby decree of divorce was granted in favour of respondent under Section 23 (1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1955 Act”).

2. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, a brief recital of relevant facts is necessary.

3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 26.03.1992. From this wedlock two children were born. Though the respondent claims that the behavior of appellant was cruel towards him and his family members, however, the learned counsel representing the appellant did not press these grounds neither before the Family Court nor before this Court. Hence, it is not necessary to refer to the detailed averments in this regard.

4. The parties have been living separately from 13.11.1997/ 07.12.1997. Initially, the respondent filed a petition for the grant of decree of divorce on 14.05.1999 on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by the appellant, which was dismissed on 04.09.2001 on the ground that the respondent could not be permitted to take benefit of his own wrongs. The aforesaid judgment attained finality. Subsequently, the appellant filed petition on 13.02.2002 under Section 9 of the 1955 Act for restitution of conjugal rights, which was allowed on 10.01.2003. Thereafter, she filed execution application under Section 47 and 151 and Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) whereas the respondent filed an application for recording of satisfaction of the decree. The application filed by the respondent was allowed on 08.12.2005 wherein it was recorded by the court that the appellant is directed to join the company of her husband Kailash. Challenging the correctness of the order the appellant filed Civil Revision i.e. CR- 1571 of 2006, (Ex.R10) which was allowed on 17.12.2013, with the Court recording the following findings:-

“I hold that the petitioner has withdrawn from the society of her husband for a valid reason and the findings recorded by the executing Court are perverse in so far as it directed petitioner to join company of respondent and recorded decree as satisfied at the instance of faulting party who by his own conduct made the compliance of decree impossible for the decree- holder. Such findings of the executing Court have the effect of giving undue benefit to the erring spouse of his own fault. Bigamy is prohibited under law and is in violation of the statutory provisions. In the circumstances of the case, wife could not have been compelled to live with the husband and it would have been unjust and unreasonable to do so and would amount to inequitable order for recording satisfaction of the decree. “One can take a horse to the water but one cannot make him to drink” is a famous proverb and the provision for restitution of conjugal rights under the Act as well as the Special Marriage Act seem to be akin to that. It is to be noted that Court cannot compel the defaulting spouse to physically return to the comfort- consortium of the decree-holder spouse. In view of the above discussion, the findings of the trial Court are result of misreading of the provision of law and are as such perverse.”

5. Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition under Section 13 (1)(a) and 13 (1) (b) of the 1955 on 29.08.2013 seeking dissolution of marriage by way of a decree of divorce which was contested by the appellant on the ground that the respondent had already contracted a second marriage