D P GOPALA Vs. PUSHPAVANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the petitioner husband is directed against the judgment and order dated 5th December 1980 passed by the Civil Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri In HMC No. 4 of 1977 on his file, dismissing the petition of the husband for divorce from his wife.

(2.) The husband instituted the petition under S, 13 (1) (i) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for divorce from his wife on the ground that she deserted him without reasonable cause for more than two years prior to the institution of the petition. The petition was instituted in February 1977.

(3.) The husband averred in the petition that he was married with the respondent in the petition in the year 1969. Immediately after the marriage, the respondent stayed with him in his house. They lived as husband and wife for about 55 days. He took the respondent to her mother's house for 'Ashada' and thereafter she did not return to his house in spite of his invitation to her to come back. She further instituted, on the other hand, a petition under S. 488 of Crl PC for maintenance in Crl.MC No. 22 of 1980 which came to be decreed for Rs. 125 per month. The husband did not pay the maintenance and an arrest warrant was issued to him. At this stage, the husband instituted a petition under S. 9 of the Act against the respondent in HMC No. 7/71 for restitution of conjugal rights. That case ended in a compromise. Accordingly the respondent was taken back by the husband on 16-1 1971 and the wife stayed with him till October 1972. In the meanwhile, she became pregnant and the petitioner took her and left her in her parent's house for delivery. Thereafter, it is the case of the husband that his wife was delivered of a child in the Madikeri Hospital and he attended the naming ceremony of the child and invited his wife to come back to his house with the child. But she did not return to his house. On the other hand, she instituted again an application for maintenance under S. 125 of Crl.PC in Crl. MC No. 32/74 which was dismissed. The respondent took up the matter in revision to the Sessions Court, that was also dismissed and since she did not return to the house of the petitioner, the petitioner instituted the present petition for divorce on the ground of desertion. 3A. The petition was resisted by the respondent wife. She contended that her husband did not come even when she delivered the child in the hospital ; that he did not give her money for maintenance ; that he did not invite her back to his house and that he did net attend even the naming ceremony. She further contended that when she stayed ID the husband's house, she was always troubled by her mother-in-law who was the step mother of her husband. She did not allow her to touch anything and to do house hold work and she made her to cook her food and eat separately. She used to go out locking the house, whenever she went out of the house. Thus, she complained that she was treated with cruelty and torture by her mother-in-law and her husband encouraged her to so ill-treat and neglected even to maintain her and the child. In that way, she submitted that she did not desert the society of her husband but she was compelled to stay away from him by his conduct. She was ever ready and willing to go and stay with her husband if he treated her properly.