JUDGMENT D.P.S. Chouhan, J. 1. The controversy involved in the present appeal relates purely to the legal question and the facts have only peripheral relevance. 2. Rajendra Singh, the husband of Smt. Tulsa Bai filed a suit for restitution of conjugal right in the Court below. The decree was granted for restitution of conjugal rights on 17-1-1991, where against an appeal was filed by the wife Smt. Tulsa Bai in this Court, which according to the learned counsel for the appellant, is pending for adjudication in this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that in that appeal, no interim order was granted and as such, the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was in operation. 3. The husband Rajendra Singh, after the grant of decree for restitution of conjugal rights on 19-1-1991, did not wait for a period of two years but immediately in the same year, filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 7-A/91, giving rise to the present appeal, which was on the grounds mentioned in Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 i.e. "has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two immediately preceding the presentation of the petition." 4. In the present case, the question for consideration is whether a person, either the wife or the husband as the case may be, can present a petition for annulment of marriage on the ground mentioned in Section 13(1)(ib) after obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before expiry of the period provided by law? 5. Section 13(1) of the Act gives ground for dissolution of the marriage straightaway. 5. Section 13(1) of the Act gives ground for dissolution of the marriage straightaway. Sub-section (1-A) which was amended by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act No. 68 of 1976 contains clause (ii) which runs as under :- "(1A) Either party to a marriage, whenever solemnised before or alter the commencement of this Act, may also present a petition for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground - (ii) That there has been no restitution of conjugal rights as between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties." Prior to the Amendment by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act No. 68 of 1976, the said period was two years after the passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights during which no restitution of conjugal rights should take place between the parties. Such an amendment was made by the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1964 on 20-12-1964 by adding sub-section (1-A). 6. It cannot be the intention of the Legislature that a party may avail of both the remedies under Sections 9 and 13 of the Act simultaneously, as has been done in the present case. In the present case, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been obtained by the husband Rajendra Singh which means he is ready to keep the wife Smt. Tulsa Bai with him. The other suit which has been filed by him is on the ground of (ib) of Section 13(1) of the Act and this ground is the ground of desertion. Here, the husband being a person having obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and without waiting for restitution of conjugal rights upto a period of one year or upward after the passing of the decree has filed a suit on the ground under Section 13(1)(ib) which cannot be permitted under the law. Since in the present case, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was obtained by the husband on 17-1-1991, subsequent filing of the suit on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) before expiry of period of one year of the date of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights was bad in law. 7. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds. 7. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds. The decree of divorce as passed by the Court below is set aside. Since no one appears to oppose the appeal, the costs of this appeal are to be borne by the respondent. However, it would be open for the, husband Rajendra Singh to file a suit for divorce if the restitution fails, as per the provisions of law and as may be advised, without prejudice by this decision.