RAMESH KUMAR DUBEY Vs. RITA DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) That Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment and decree dated 11/3/98 passed by District Judge, Durg in Civil Suit No. 46-A/97, by which a decree of judicial separation has been passed. Respondent/wife has also preferred cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for setting aside the decree of judicial separation passed by the Court below.

(2.) It is not disputed that the parties to the proceedings were married as per the Hindu rites and out of the said wedlock a child namely Ankush was born who at present is in the custody of the Respondent/wife. The Appellant and the Respondent lived together as husband and wife for a period of one year and since thereafter they are living separately. The Appellant served a registered notice to the Respondent calling upon her to resume cohabitation which was replied by the Respondent. The Appellant filed an application for divorce on the ground that Respondent resided with him till November-1994 and thereafter she is residing in the house of her brother-in-law at Bhilai without his permission and without there being any reasonable cause. He further stated in his application that when efforts to bring the Respondent back failed, legal notice was sent to her. However, the Respondent did not return and thereby deserted him continuously for a period of two year since the date of filing of application and now all the possibilities of reconciliation have ended.

(3.) In reply to the application filed by Appellant the Respondent/wife has averred that on 2/1/1995 her brothers and brother in law went to the house of the Appellant and took her from the matrimonial house with the permission of the Appellant and his family members. It is also alleged that the Appellant did not keep her bonafidely as wife during her stay in his house and he used to loose temper on trivial matters. After receiving the notice from the Appellant the Respondent had proposed that if the Appellant improves his habits and is prepared to take her and the child bonafidely, only then she could return. She stated that no efforts were made by the Appellant to take her back nor did he make any provisions for their maintenance. It was denied that she deserted her husband. On the contrary she was ready to live with the Appellant as his wife provided he takes the responsibility of her safety.