Karnataka High Court
N V Ramesh vs Radhika on 9 July, 2009
Bench: N.Kumar, A.N.Venugopala Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 9*" DAY OF JULY, 2009
PRESENT 'V
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUM'A;..Vf.
AND
THE HOi\£'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.v:E_NUTSOEvALA' GO\AIO]A___
Miscellaneous First Annéa'!._§\|o. Vi-*.1,7'2 (VFC_;3
BETWEEN: % ' I V
Sri. N.V.Ramesh _
S/O Y.ChandraShekhar Shetty,
Age:36 years, _
Duggavati Vitlage, S
Harapanahalji1-TaEL;'k,_. , " .
Davanagere' Distri"Ct.3'..__ »
. - V = _ T - APPELLANT
(By Sri. 'F.V«..Pati-IV Aria, '}
AND _ L
A '«sT4ASm1tU.'*RadOhikTa EEEEE
._ .WfO N._\/.wRarhesh,
'O_C"c--:_Ho'Uséwife;""'
R/'Q No.1_77'8,_/2, Ist main,
_ 9"' Cross, \'?i"riobhanagar,
' Dava n"avgAé:re.
RESPONDENT
_ '(By Sri.H.Kanthara3'a Adv.,)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE
FAMILY COURT ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 30.08.2004 PASSED IN MC NO.77/2003 ON THE FILE
OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DAVANGERE, ALLOWING
THE PETITION FILED U/S 9 OF THE HINDU MARRI.AG_E~.,ACT
SEEKING DECREE FOR RESTITUTION OF CON3U.G!3U__VFR1'GH-TS
AND DISMISSING THE COUNTER CLAIM or THE APvP,?E..LjL}%.i\iTV
HEREIN.
This appeal coming onfIFor"«oiP--ders,I"0«this'--7~'dVa'y, 07 I
VENUGOPALA GOWDA, 3., deliveredrthe' fo=!.i,owi'ng:"'
;.!.;.p_eM«,....E 1
The respondent under
Section 9 of Hindu :vPP.i'95vEn3.,"'{for short 'the Act')
against her husband, the..:ap»peV|.FI,-grit'P.hePreFi.n','stating that, her
husband'i'hasV.A'withFo§.;it. rt-:aV9so'nab"i'ew»e3:<cuse, withdrawn from her
societyP"an'd: hencefpah for restitution of conjugal rights
may be orderevd favour. She had also filed a petition
aga"I'r§'9:St,_§3;3oe|iant,«u_n_der Section 125 Cr.P.C. for awardng of
'ma'inta--ina~nceG'in_,her favour.
' Notiches of the petition having been ordered to the
g appeiiani: and after considering both the petitions, objections
Ig..a'ri'ci«'..the"Precord of the cases, the Court below having found
-- that,Ithere is truth in the statements We by the petitioner
/"
,_v
before it, has passed the decree granting restitution of
conjugai rights and has also awarded the maintainance
amount. Feeling aggrieved, this appeai has been
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties
referred to, with reference to their rank in.'the--ijetitions i"i._ie§_ K
before the Triai Court.
4. Marriage between.'oe«ti_VtionVer._and
performed on 24.4.1998; thefied._matrimonia|Vilife in the
house of the responderi--t_afn_d 'tha.t~t'he.y».,|9i'a~\:'ne no issues.
Case of the petitio.nj:er"-is'=__that,Driesipondent started
negiecti_ng._her"an'd,,:hegn'ce,'"she-was forced to iive separateiy.
Petitioner'=--having" no, to maintain herself, fiied a
peti,ta§on for awarding: of maintenance under Section 125
.i§{i'isc.No.50/2002. The said Misc. petition was
i"u.is'i:.oseaFg,r__ .5:rai""16.4.2oo3, after filing of the petition for
restitution of conjugal rights in M.c.No.77/2003. During the
..,.:pAiendenVc'y., a petition under Section 13~B of the Act, for
'diix/orce by mutual consent was filed, which was registered as
-*'iviiV.C.No 34/2003. After expiry of 6 mont s period, petitioner
..
did not consent for divorce and hence the said petition was dismissed on 20.10.2003. in the said proceedings, respondent had deposited a sum of Rs.1,25,000[+..VVto'wards permanent alimony, which was ordered to be ret?_:ur'ne'ci:~,--..along with other movables to the respondent.
amount and the movables were returned ,by4th.e-.petit'io'n_erc;_at According to the petitioner, herself andithej were co:-dial to each other months and thereafter respondentVst.ai't_ed--V,,h.arassi'nlg:"'*a.nd ill-treating her, without any justifiable the petitioner admitted by falsely stating that, she is 'suffei'i:'n:g'fro"mi'menta| disorder and left her in the hospital parents, who on coming to know,' rushed hospital and took her to their house. '.'Petitionver_s.ta"tecE that, she is not suffering from any mental "'Il.|_n'ess 'land...__ti'i:at', in order to create evidence against her, resp'ond--.entv"admitted her in the hospital and that, she is
0. .,iphysicaVli'y and mentally sound and very much healthy. It was 'stated that, respondent did not make any effort to take if "her to matrimonial home to lead a happy marital life and that / he has refused to take her, in view of which, she was forced to iive in her parental house and that she has no income, in View of which, she filed Cri.Misc 125/2003 under Secti:o'n..125 Cr.P.C.
5. Respondent filed written stateme.nt_j"V«aVnc,:'counter,i":,_ ciaim under Section 13(1)(iii) of Ithe:,i€ici;.,J"for4.,di-sso.iu,t'iVo.n_of marriage, by contending that, after «m.arriage,.,V.v;3eti,tione:i;' iivedfi with him oniy for one month an"d..:_s'he was'-not'coo'3~;ing, never used to do house and ~.s;u-ffering 'from mentai disorder. According to .peti_tio:ne:'r-.use'd..to take medicines 4 times a days_'a4n"d.,,,i.1ad ":.iniiiat;ura'i and she has taken treatment--_from"'7on.e"D'r;i!\i:a'vg_a'raja Rao, who is a weli known psychiatris-tatnd it »-rev-eaied that, she was suffering from mentifaifv iiinessV'sin,ce a iong time, even prior to the marriage :3ridfti1es'sa%id:fa,ct was reveaied to him only after 20 days after athe'f.--maVrr'ia~g.e.5,"It was further stated that, during the time of her""sta*-vf in" the matrimoniaf house, she never behaved ' ,::pnrcperEv" and whenever appeiiant used to go near her, she .' 'use'd":to bite, beat and also used to throw siippers on him, i "apart from pouring water in meal andiie used to attend ":7 nature call in front of the house of the neighbour. According to the respondent, looking to the conduct of the petitioner, he informed the facts to her parents, who tookgher-h.sta'ti.ng that, after treatment she would be sent back house. It was further stated:-Ithat, p7-_,etitVione,rVllgavexfalf complaint to Mahila Jagrutha SannghaiicofllDayaragere him and that the Sangha afterjggjlhoglgdinig anenqui'i=y,"'i'nformed'V parents of petitioneryig giye--- trelatrnenit to their daughter and send hertnereafte'»rjto::'A'rr§a'tri'm.onlaI house. He has stated tha.t,.:pe.titio¥ner' mental illness even prior,- which fact was supprejssed performed by her parents.
According: after lapse of many years, petitioner is"no't cu'red"v_fro'm mental illness, in view of which, .---.,._he for dillssoiution of marriage. Respondent further is physically disabled and he cannot properly tallittduevhtorstammering and that his left leg is affected by 'zpolio. '~A'c'cording to him, he has no source of income and he ":i,'i_s.,g:etting aid from the Government. K / dz
6. Considering the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the 10 fottowing issues;
1) aim; aadraaaegfifi, wmmmdm gig ;-sm e5fi£'c:>ac5<?a Ci)&i)5U3~B)\)o"'5@r?JCTi)§i§?(f>,? _ _h V mi aadsarscsé 5oK§5':3ai)<EQgi)€ 3éz3r%d>&3g6oCiJ oazzam,-zmjaag c:t>§':'\;a_aa g«.[£:;c1>¢j:'§5(é,'?»y:.., h eac':"3&<xi3a:b mass :r3(:)a:p %VMi$;§,¢L:ac;} c°,V:$'¢i')E'fl§;_ciSvE)a":'f¢a¢"3s"c3ac5e?o afiaamvé ejzog « damajafixdfifir?
:;a:m--a§;3;g;;.%}?%;;a%a:;w:;o%aaéasé::%Lfe5>;>.:»a.:;a:>aj o"z_':_5c§€a 23 as 'dfiaafoeg €fl23FCI5aCj€?L) aazgg z£P5V*:§@02§£':=§é%"3é"é§(é.'}* .. ' ' "o\;F:5ac1;:oac<{fi;§%%:sa5Q§:;2 e3e>z§,%dJ3:fi eacsm k%d;3;fi,%d)3aJ5I30Cj3 cuasaaaaa;o<3mca;am° ?
a:.Laa@a'e./gen wégafiwagcéom ~ @5565' d>aa>a3a3\)o"d®A'oe3¢3e ?
afiimzzsadaarfi e:?C:':3<1i>a:>5:3 mom eaaarasadcsb mwoasaéxowée ?
e923z~'<':>ad¢;i> E'3€°6Z3.r'UE3OE§E7:. aaaafér? k // fin 9 as) 2:?l%:S;Uao.3»5cf> oi3il~j.>a€afi5.fi;? 9 33) C1iJ"c?<i5 aaorsmocfi?
159 aiioaaoafirrdp .7'
7. Petitioner got herself _examined""'as'_'v lrlerd parents deposed as Pws 2 and 3. V'-Res,po.._F.'decnt 'e'){arni'cr::-,ed himself as RW1 and examine'c'lV_tw.o ne:ghbours',:'asj.'R.ws.32 ands,"
3. He produced 10 documents_;4_l:\}ll-hfch'Rare.hmarvlsedglias Exs.R1 to R10. Trial Court, Vcorisi_de_rir;.:g contentions and record, allowedboth t.he'v:.p:eti'tio_n,s decree for restitution of maintainance and appellant. The said dated 30.8.2003, so far as allowing tlhie.petltion'Alforirestttution of conjugal rights, has '_ peenicquestivoneld"--iin_t_h_is. appeal by the respondent/husband. ' 8."'l:"Wle«._._have heard learned counsel for the appellant A tAh'e--:"record.
Flfstly, learned counsel for appellant contended ;.''that_, Court below has ignored the evide\Ke of Pws 2 to 3, who in unequivocal terms have admitted that, petitioner/PW1 is suffering from mental illness, in view of which, the counter claim of the appellant for dissolution of marriageggouigrht to have been allowed, by dismissing the petition__fo'r' of conjugal rights. Secondly, it was conte»nd:ed"'lthat, reasons assigned by Court below to,-..g,r}anli "the. d'e'cree;,for ' conjugal rights is incorrect.an_d that,"theree,»'iVs;no rn:aterial'a. placed on record, estab|ishing.._"'Lthe fact._u:lthat,'; appellant neglected the respondeat;-anc--T_VAth,lrd'Iy,_'ln"view of the fact that, mental disorder of the p'rio'r't§o---t'he marriage was not brought o1f"apo'el.la'n't','*itself is a good ground for disrhi'ss'ihg;':he .i_"n"n'ot doing so, the Trial Court has committed arna'telri4a_:|l"'er'ror and illegality. __1.0. Aiter:Vhea'ring the learned counsel for the appellant ' "-and~--o*n iperuisal of records, the points for consideration are; the Trial Court has committed an .erro_r.5in not allowing the counter claim, that is, "'--'.th'e'fdecree of divorce?
"=._2.HWhether the appellant/husband without reasonable cause, has withdrawn from the '/2"' ./ €-
society of the respondent/wife and whether, the Triai Court committed any error in aliowing the petition and in granting a decre»e_"~.,_ of restitution of conjugai rights?
Re.Point No.1:~
11. The iearned trial Judge oAn.__e"x_a_mina'tVi_--on' of. and documentary evidence,"v--v,.i.s'~-beof the 'V.\1ij'e_2v\i"':,V,4t'h'at, the respondent has not ,p~roved<'"'th.at,iwdhigs spouse"; (wife) is suffering from inte4rn1.it'te'r-i~twi"'if disorder and conseC|K:entiy,§, husband was negatived. poi-nit"for:'V_ctins.ideration is, whether the materiaion"record::§§sVV'suffi.Vc'ientQtoiihioid that, the appellant has proved the parties shouid have been d.,issoii§}ed_:'und'er'S.i"3V (1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act «g§tn"ei'm: fc,i.r,,'sho'rt)"'a'n'd the relief granted to him? a decree for divorce in terms of the V -V proi}'isio-nscontained in S.13(1)(iii) of the Act, it has to be it'flv,:e3ta<biished that, a person should be suffering from such ine'n't'ai disorder and to such an extent that, the petitioner "cannot reasonabiy be expected to iive the respondent. /"
,-u.
E1 The requirement of law is that, it is not the mere mental disorder in itself that entitles the person for relief under the said provision. Mental disorder of such a degrefa_'«th'at.,'rV..iVt"is impossible to lead normal marital life or it is urirr,easjovnable.t'o ' expect a person to put up with the"spo'use"-'with.sur:_h:vm:envt'al l condition. It is in this background le.a.rned.'tri,al»VEudgiplehasu examined the evidence and t~h.ai:v,.,'t:heR:'dVe'gree of mental disorder requirecsto granltthieurelief und'er"§.13(1)(iii) of the Act, has not been
13. Th,e§t,..api§'él--i_ant:.wimfi'e e'eposM:'ti'g""'as RW.1 has stated that, the', b~e_fi,3v§.;g'ut" of this-- was not normal. After observing : the "u~:in..n'at,u'ra:l:'"-behaviour, he took her to a Psychiatrist,__4[)r.vNaga}=aja.iliao, Davanagere, who, stated that, sLiffering»._.Vfrom: mental illness and that she should »continu_e'A«.to:"*t,a_ke the medicine, which she was taking. the fact was brought to the notice of her pare"nts",V:,wi1'o took her to their house and later on i.e., in if"4'};i3ec.emb'er, 1998 brought her back and left her at the inaltrilmonial house. A complaint was lodged with Mahila Tagruta Sangha. The earlier unnatural behaviour was '\ /"
of.
'igfoi'vitreatinient i.e., mentai iiiness. ]?
4...
repeated. In April, 1999, she was got treated. She was admitted at Karnataka Mentai Heaith Society, Dhai-wad. Ex.R5 is the registration card of Bapuji hospital, Davangere, and it is dated 19.7.1998. ex.Rs(1) is the dischargefltarid, of the said hospitai which shows that Smt._R}a'd'h'ik§;..,:_j:w.aS_ admitted on 11.9.1998 and discharged»ittoe'jjirg2,9~,9.<:i_99,8.iis,fi'~ Ex.R5(2) to R5(8) are prescription:s'.__an_Vdebféllsifori p-tiirch-a_se::,oQf medicine. Ex.R6 is the card of K_Varna'ta_ka itientaliiit» Helath, Dharwad.
14. Apart from' "tt.h'e_'said'¢1.evi'd»ence, appeilant has examined one Smt.Shairac§ajmma,'.tg_asv_Fi,Wv,2, According to her, shefiis'-the. has stated that, she observed that Radhika "wassi.tti.n'g.fiouétside her house uttering certain words,'Vthrowing'-..si__i_p_pers, passing urine in front of the neighboprs,"--h,o~tises, sitting alone outside her house, that too, 'i"ri--t'ii.¢ she advised her. She has stated that, 9 she ihitngeiztig that on many occasions, she was taken to doctor '\/9 K.» 13
15. RW.3 is G.Gurunath Bhat, who is also a neighbour of the appellant. He has stated that, the behavi'o~:ir of Radhika was unnatural. She used to alone iaugh,.SC5._l'd".jegtC., and she was passing urine in front of the neig'h'bours"~ hou'sesV7--~ and she was sitting alone in the house and that, she wasuV_'advisedV.by réeigjhfbvour», Smt.Sharadamma. He |earn't"i'r»t:hat, Srnt,"'ad-ihil<°a was not mentally fit.
16. It visa"onlyftheitse:l'f:.sertiing:'testimony of the appellant n'e':t.g_ht;;g'ur.sV,fwfhtcfhfwfflhas been placed on record ifefsp,ondent is suffering from have not been proved by examining-ugghevv medical practitioner has been examineid to pro.\:/e that, the respondent is suffering from »the-nwta!_,:iIlnes's~-i.__e., schizophrenia. Insofar as, the granting of "'r~el'i'e_f«o'f "filI'i_».r.ori§:'eV..under S.13(1)(iii) of the Act is concerned, the'.""nat'u_re"and degree of mental disorder which needs the °>"'u._:r'equ_ireVment, has been spelt out by the Hon't>le Supreme 'c.p"u'r':} in the case of RAM NARAIN GUPTA vs. SMT. \ yr' I4 RAMESHWARI GUPTA (AIR 1988 SC 2260), wherein it has been observed as follows:
"The context in which the ideas of of "mind" and "mental disorder" occur"2---inv'.:fl'ive"vi 'V'. section as grounds for dissolution of _a"'iri-a:jrria'gV:e;~_ require the assessment of}ithe'_ygdeg':ee""of--th.e" g "mental disorder". Its _degree__ bev_-such'. that the spouse seel<inlg_:rei_ief Arrm_stV that the spouse seeking -c_annot«.reasonably be expected to with thVe:.._o.t.h'er. Allmental abnormalities are grounds for grant ofvde'cree.:""'If"the Vexflstegnce of any degrees 3-.._of could justify dissol€uqtio:n';.~ot'.a feiN"'rnarriages would, "'§c"hizophrenia" it is true, i§,5a'icj to be?icijiltriccfiiiviriijeiitai affliction. It is said to ilnsid'i'ou'sV.:in,:"'i'_ts' onset and has hereditary §'pre;-disVposiV_'ng" factor. It is characterized by the 5:..':'sh'a|lo.iiynessl'o'f"'emotions and is marked by a
-v.gAd"etaicVlinrient from reality. In paranoid-«states, the "'.,._£Vxi.Ctll:l'1__ i'e's'Vponds even to fleeting expressions of di._S4ap.5provai from others by disproportionate 'i'eactions generated by hallucinations of A 'l"'«-._persecution. Even well meant acts of kindness ' "sand of expression of sympathy appear to the victim as insidious traps. In its worst M //"
U':
and her answers as could be seen froigx manifestation, this illness produces a crude wrench from reality and brings about a lowering But of the higher mental functions.
personality--disintegration that characterise-s--.'thi._s' illness may be of varying degrees.
schizophrenics are characte.ri'se»d_b\,?_' the"r--VIs4?an:e'_:~_ 'V.l_\lo3*~.alii I5 intensity of the decease. The mere.:bra.n(l-i'n'g 'o'f:a.__ A' person as schizophrenicrtherefore'will n_otLs,uffice';': "
For purposes of S.13(1'}t(V'i"i'ii) "svch-.i;o'p.h_r;en'i:a'l'V"is what schizophrenia do:e--s--. Al'l-...LJ_7483, Affirmed." V A' i " ' /X' /,4' The aforesaid inadequate to arrive at cannot reasonably expectvrto"'li'¢e:iwith'the wife. The finding of the Trial is rui:i;,.iJugimagit in View of the fact that, the conduct ofvrjfev n:ey.er'.i,_ndi.'c'ated that, the appellant was put to or d'an"ge.r._.,t'o his life or that, he had found it ,,'tr;):':'l.ead a normal marital life with her. The discloses that, the parties lived in the 7gmatirimoniaylxlhouse. The petitioner--wife has appeared before ' '.ffthel"(§ouVrt, deposed and stood the test of cross~examination the deposition, .16 appears to be sensible and no abnormal behaviour can be noticed. Nothing material has been elicited in the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 to the effect that, their daughter the mental illness of such a degree that, it is impossi~ble_,'to_"__iie'ad ._a marital life with her.
17. Keeping in view the appreciating the same in the _mann--er"lrequi,re--d.,i'n"|aw,'the», Trial Court has concluded that,'V"ithe» materi~a_l°pl~ace'ci: on record by the husband is notmsuffiuiieint.'Vco-ncludemthvati he has made out a case underH_S'.-i_3(i'i_)V{iii).~*of' We do not find any materiaigei*ror"._oriillegalit'y--:fi*n..t_he conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court has appreciated both oral and 'd.ocume'ntaicy=evidence in the proper perspective. No,.i_:1.hateria| circumstance or evidence is left out from .con,sio'era.tion"-so as to call for interference in appeal. Before 'a~_p'erso'n«co.uld,"i5e branded as a person suffering from mental illness, should be cogent evidence, which is not The Trial Court which had the benefit of .' "obseriving the parties while they were in witness box, has "correctly appreciated the evidence and r\§case is made out /"
Vt 17 for interference to grant the reiief of divorce under S.13(1)(iii) of the Act. Point No.1 is answered accordifrigloy. Re.Point No.2:-
18. PW-1 has deposed that, 24.04.1998, she lived with her huisband for,'.~a.tp"ei"'iod."o~f'V8».,' months at Duggavati viilage 'i'}i'e_.T}marita.!._hc.fhe.I: éhe has stated that, without her husband took her to theVmentaiV_hosoi§t'a|:: and ieft her there. She that, Vvas done by her husband to create record for ha's'._"d'ebV'osed that, thereafter she was her husband, as wet! as his famiiy. .,mern'barVs,V.caus'ed""harassment. She has stated that, .--V.,.,.ghe[_.¢'is:,j'~.ready Han'ci""Vwiiling to iead marital life with
-.,rés_pondje.nt/husband and despite her request to take her to thé-zqrnaritali'E-_.i1ome, her husband did not compiy with the V'-».request,.V__A'1~She has expressed her readiness and willingness to husband. NY} /7 I8
19. Respondent/husband in his affidavit evidence has stated that, the petitioner/wife stayed with him at hisflviliage for about one month and he found that, knowledge of cooking or doing any work a_ndl'v*.itasflibehavinlg indifferentiy with mental ailments. has treatment for the alleged mental illness)». He stated. ét"hat,=, it is impossible for him to lead"'m:a"i*itai life..vvi'thV-lthe: petitioner and he has also stated"~tihat_.'id.heA meansxto provide maintenance to her. He hat-ss_pr'ave'd .FoVr"d'jec_ree of divorce. 20- :Th:'0LJ9?ll..;th'€'..:P};3ti.ti0fi€:fVhaswshown eagerness to lead mari.tal"'i..l1i'fe*.:;yvVi_th._:"heiA"husgbvand/respondent, it is on account' of' then'.'atti'tai'd'ie::"e.f'the husband/respondent, the parties ar'e.4__l'itijVng' _a'part;"*----...fr4he petitioner has exhibited her _ readiiiness and"*wVi:llingness to join her husband and lead erriarlijtal_VVli'fe.--_The act of the petitioner to join her husband and llllead-._g.he'r:AVmar'i~t'al.. life is well--established from the evidence. V . Despite.-._'l;he"petitioner's willingness to lead marital life, the ._resp.ondvent has not shown eagerness to take care of his wife .' "on the contrary, has attempted to project that she is 'suffering from mental illness and it will be impossible for him 47'.
19 to continue the marital relationship. The case of the respondent/husband for grant of decree of divorce is untenable, which we have answered supra. In view"'--of our finding on point No.1, it has to be held,,,__'4thtat..,':.the appeliant/husband without reasonable cause from the society the respondent/wife"end,'h.enfc_e,._Vthi§'.i trial l court was justified in allowing :'p.etition,_*v_iAa'ri'd decree of restoration of conju'gi.a:l"i~irights.---_App'e|lVant]'husbandV has not piaced any acceptable"'evid"entie_in jus'ti'fication of his refusal to lead maritai life-1'wifthffthep.-.fes_l?§fn_dent/wife. Point No.2 is answe,red.._a"_c.--cor§:linglyi
-. The°i'rial'icou.rt*-has considered the cases of the parties in "ac_corda'n_ce.'w--itihciaw. It had the benefit of watching _ thedernur of t'he_,Vwitnesses. Learned trial judge has referred eviden'c.e_ of the parties in great deal and has correctly f'a.p"pi.r_§:.5iVated.__thesame. We do not find any perversity or V . illegéaiity-fori"the part of the learned trial judge in the matter if ._of eonsvivderation of the case and appreciation of evidence on .' 'refioréi. The evidence has been correctly appreciated and the T "findings have been recorded, as a resq: of which, the /5 petition fiied by the wife has beer: aiiowed and the counter claim of the husband has been negetived. Since there is neither any perversity nor iilegaiity committed by the learned trial judge, there is no merit in this appeali Eyen on reconsideration of the record, we arrive at .«ti':t.=.f-._s*errie conclusion as has been arrived at by the learne§3:~--tri:afyl"}Li'd«gie*.--Té . For the foregoing reasons, the ar§:pee|"'ri_ys it and hence, the same shalt stand dismissed. ':':.M:,' E Judd-5 say;
312 do?