G MALLIKARJUNA Vs. G THIPPAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Alleging desertion by the wife, the Appellant-husband approached the Matrimonial Court under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), praying for dissolution of his marriage with the Respondent by granting a decree of divorce. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has dismissed the petition. The husband is in appeal, impugning the judgment and order passed by the Matrimonial Court.

(2.) The marriage between the parties took place in 1971 according to Hindu rites and custoMs. They have, five daughters and a son, born out of the wedlock. The husband alleged that, for more than two years, his wife has not joined him at the place of his permanent residence and/or the places of his posting. There is allegation made against the wife in respect of the property and money matters. There is also an assertion that, panchayath was held to bring back his wife, for staying with him, but she refused to do so. After serving a notice, the Appellant filed petition in the Matrimonial Court for decree of divorce.

(3.) The Respondent-wife, in the statement of objections filed to the petition, contended that, her wedlock with the Appellant has lead to birth of five daughters and a son and that, the first three daughters are married. A daughter and the son are still minors. She stated that, the spouses lived together at her parents' house and later, the Appellant took a house on rent at Makanaduku village for their residence, but did not pay the rent to the owner and that the Appellant, who had an assured salary income of Rs. 10,000/- per month, refused to maintain her and her children, on account of which, a petition was filed for awarding of maintenance. It was further stated that, the Petitioner is in bad company and that, he has undergone a second marriage on 24.12.2002, without her consent, on account of which, a criminal case under Section 494 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was filed. The Respondent has denied the allegations made by the Appellant with regard to the property and money matters. Respondent stated that, she did not desert the society of the Appellant and she is ready and willing to go and stay with him.