You cannot force your wife to stay with you

2) if your wife refuses to stay with you even after court orders of RCR you can file for divorce after expiry of one year from decree

3) no case for contempt of court is made out

Hi, it is advisable to file a divorce petiton on the grounds of desertion , if she is not willing to carry on matrimonial life

Hello,

You will have to file a case for execution of the order and note that no court can force her to love with you.

You may take divorce on the ground of dissertion.

Regards

Write a Letter through your Ld. Advocate addressing to your wife and narrated the extract order of the Decree passed by the Hon'ble Court.

After elapsing one year, if your wife did not comply with the Decree of Conjugal right. Then you file Divorce Application U/S 13 of HM Act.

You can obtain Decree of Divorce

1. In execution of the RCR decree you can file a execution whereby the property of your wife can be attached.

2. No case for contempt of court can be filed.

3. After one year of passing of decree if wife does not come back then a fresh proceeding can be filed for divorce on non compliance of RCR decree.

4. If decree is passed then send a registered letter along with a copy of the decree to her. This is essential.

Dear Sir,

You can get easily divorce on producing copy RCR order along with your divorce petition as per following proceedure.

If conjugal right is not restored within one year of getting the RCR decree, the aggrieved party is eligible to get divorce.

Non-compliance with a decree of judicial separation

By sub-sec. (IA) of s.13 either spouse may present a petition for divorce on the ground that there has not been any resumption of cohabitation of the parties to the marriage for a period not less than one year after the passing of a decree for judicial separation. Resumption of cohabitation means living together in conjugal relationship. But this means is narrow and as such it should not be applied to all cases irrespective of their special and surrounding circumstances. The meaning of this expression therefore depends upon the intention of the parties, and there may be resumption of cohabitation even where the parties do not live under the same roof of matrimonial home. If there is sexual intercourse of the parties to the marriage, it is no doubt a good ground to presume the resumption of cohabitation, but that is not the conclusive evidence for this purpose. The birth of a child from an isolated act of sexual intercourse does not mean resumption of cohabitation. There may be resumption of cohabitation without having sexual intercourse. The court will grant a decree for divorce on the ground provided in sub¬ sec. (1A) of s.13 in the absence of any bar laid down in s. 23 of the Act. In a proceeding for divorce, a decree of judicial separation cannot be challenged on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court in the previous proceedings.

The statutory period of one year (previously two years) laid down in this provision will be operative from the date of the judgment of the District Court and with the lapse of this period the High Court in Letters Patent appeal may pass a decree for divorce under s. 13( 1 A) of the Act. But where a decree for judicial separation is passed by the High Court in appeal, period of one year (previously two years) will commence from the date of the decree in appeal But where an appeal is preferred against the decree and the decree confirmed by dismissing the appeal, the period of one year (previously two years) will run from the date of the original decree.

Non-compliance with a decree of judicial separation

By sub-sec. (IA) of s.13 either spouse may present a petition for divorce on the ground that there has not been any resumption of cohabitation of the parties to the marriage for a period not less than one year after the passing of a decree for judicial separation. Resumption of cohabitation means living together in conjugal relationship. But this means is narrow and as such it should not be applied to all cases irrespective of their special and surrounding circumstances. The meaning of this expression therefore depends upon the intention of the parties, and there may be resumption of cohabitation even where the parties do not live under the same roof of matrimonial home. If there is sexual intercourse of the parties to the marriage, it is no doubt a good ground to presume the resumption of cohabitation, but that is not the conclusive evidence for this purpose. The birth of a child from an isolated act of sexual intercourse does not mean resumption of cohabitation. There may be resumption of cohabitation without having sexual intercourse. The court will grant a decree for divorce on the ground provided in sub¬ sec. (1A) of s.13 in the absence of any bar laid down in s. 23 of the Act. In a proceeding for divorce, a decree of judicial separation cannot be challenged on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court in the previous proceedings.

The statutory period of one year (previously two years) laid down in this provision will be operative from the date of the judgment of the District Court and with the lapse of this period the High Court in Letters Patent appeal may pass a decree for divorce under s. 13( 1 A) of the Act. But where a decree for judicial separation is passed by the High Court in appeal, period of one year (previously two years) will commence from the date of the decree in appeal But where an appeal is preferred against the decree and the decree confirmed by dismissing the appeal, the period of one year (previously two years) will run from the date of the original decree.

Non-compliance with a decree of restitution of conjugal rights

Under cl (ii) of sub-sec. (1A) of s. 13 either party to the marriage may present a petition for divorce on the ground that there has been no resumption of conjugal rights for a period of not less than one year after the passing of a decree to that effect. The court before granting a decree for divorce on this ground may be satisfied that the petitioner is not disentitled to this right by reason of any bar laid down in s. 23 of the Act. After a decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained by the wife under s.9 of the Act the husband is not entitled to the relief under s. 13( lA) of the Act if he fails to comply with the decree and also acts positively by ill-treating her and driving her away from the house.19 There are, however, conflicting decisions on the question of application of s. 23(1 )(a) of the Act. The Punjab High Court, the Mysore High Court and the Bombay High Court' were of the opinion that the petitioner in divorce proceedings cannot take the advantage of his or her own wrong for the purpose of this relief by non-compliance with the decree of restitution of conjugal rights.

But the FuIl Bench of the Delhi High Court is of the opinion that non-compliance with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the husband would not constitute 'wrong' within the meaning of s. 23(1)(a) of the Act. A reconciliation between these two sets of conflicting decisions has been suggested in an article3 that the equation of the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder for making a petition under this provision has no bearing on the conduct of either party after the decree is passed. But the court in divorce proceedings may consider the condiJct of the parties not considered in the proceedings leading to the decree. It is submitted that the plain wordings of s. 13(1A) have made no distinction between the parties to the marriage and hence any contrary holding would impute super added idea in the intention of the Legislature making the amendment for insertion of sub-sec. (1A) of s. 13 of the Act. Further, where the language is plain and simple without any ambiguity, s. 13(1)(a) should not restrict and control the application of s. 13(1A) of the Act. In a case where a consent decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed, it would form the basis for divorce for non-compliance. It is to be noted that if a decree for restitution of conjugal rights is complied with, there is no scope for a petition of divorce.

AIl the controversies on this issue have come to rest on the decision of Saroj Rani v Sudarshan Kumar, where it has been held that after a decree for restitution of conjugal rights the husband is entitled for a decree of divorce under s. 13 of the Act and his failure to resume cohabitation would not amount to "wrong" within the meaning of s. 23(1 )(a) of the Act. But where the husband has obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, only for the purpose of seeking a divorce under s. 13(1 A)(ii) of the Act and preventing the wife from performing her conjugal duties by driving her away from the house, this constituted misconduct under s. 23(1)(a) of the Act as the husband was taking advantage of his own wrong and hence he was not entitled to any relief under s. 13(1A) of the Act.6a

Even when a decree of conjugal rights is filed by a competent court of law in favour of one of the spouses, such a decree cannot be executed and the other spouse who is directed to resume the conjugal relations, cannot be forced to do so, SC held recently.

Again approch family court to issue fresh directions.

1. No. She can not be punished for not complying with the court order n connection with your RCR case.

2. You shall have to serve copy of the said RCR order upon her. In case she is absconding, you shall have to publish gist of the said Court order in two local Newspapers.

3. Only benefit to derive out of the RCR favourable order is that you can file a divorce suit after one year of her being communicated with the said RCR order and if she does not comply with the said order.

The RCR decree is not executable as per law of execution.

You may send a notice to her based on the RCR decree.

If she is not returning then after completion of two years from the date of decree, you can file a contested divorce case against her for which this RCR decree will come to your rescue for relief and remedy.

Wife can file DV case against husband if husband has been having an extra marital affair

However no DV case is maintainable against his girl friend as she does not fall within definition of relative

No it is not an offence but she can file a divorce case on that grounds seeking dissolution of their marriage.

on 27 September 2018 S.C Passed Order,

Adultery can be ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriage but it cannot be a criminal offence

1. No. As per law wife had no right to allege adultery of her husband and only the husband of the other lady had the said right.

2. From yesterday, adultery is no longer considered as a crime as per IPC any more as per the Judgement passed by the Supreme Court.

3. However, adultery will be considered as a good ground for seeking the decree of divorce by the concerned wife/husband.

That amounts to mental cruelty and yes he can be punished for the same, the same also becomes a ground of divorce