' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The respondent has already been proceeded against ex parte vide order, dated 10-6-2004. Even today none has appeared for the respondent although the name of her counsel has been duly listed.
2. The petitioner impugns the order, dated 16-3-2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rahimyarkhan, whereby he has proceeded to order dissolution of the marriage of petitioner with respondent No,3. Both parties are Bheel by caste and adherents of the Hindu religion. On 19-6- 1999, the respondent filed a suit seeking dissolution of marriage. The suit was decreed ex parte on 21-12-1999. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge on 16-3-2001. The learned Additional District Judge framed an additional issue No,5-A and remanded the case to the learned trial Court for decision afresh. Issue No,5-A was in the following terms:--- "Whether there is a custom of Talaq in the tribe of the parties? O.P. Parties."
3. After remand, the parties led evidence on the issues, including issue No, 5-A. The learned trial Court proceeded to dismiss the respondent's suit on the ground that dissolution of marriage was not permitted under the Hindu Law. On appeal, the learned Appellate Court has reversed the finding of the learned trial Court. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the finding of the learned Appellate Court by referring to the Hindu Married Women's Right to separate Residence and Maintenance Act, 1946.
According to the said statute, a Hindu married woman shall be entitled to separate residence and maintenance from her husband on one or more of the grounds mentioned in section 2 of the said enactment. For case of reference, the relevant part of section 2 is reproduced as under:-- "(2) Grounds for claiming separate residence and maintenance.---Notwithstanding any custom or law to the contrary to Hindu married woman shall be entitled to separate residence and maintenance from her husband on one or more of their following grounds, namely:--
(1) If he is suffering from any loathsome disease not contracted from her:--
(2) If he is guilty of such cruelty towards her as renders it unsafe or undesirable for her to live with him;
(3) .
(4) .
(5) .
(6) .
(7) for any other justifiable cause;"
5. The evidence on record shows that the respondent/plaintiff has been able to establish the aforesaid grounds. But for the restriction on dissolution of marriage among Hindus, the appellate judgment would have been justified. However, in view of the provisions of the above-referred Act, a Hindu wife can only claim separate residence and maintenance, and not discussion of marriage. In the circumstances, the impugned appellate judgment is modified. A decree for separate residence and maintenance is passed in favour of the respondent Mst. Guddi against the petitioner. This petition is disposed of with this modification.