RAJ KHANNA Vs. KRISHAN LAL KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act is directed against the judgment dated June 10, 1968 of the Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, exercising the powers of a District Court under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1953 (herein called 'the Act') passing a decree for judicial sepiration in favour of the hasband, Krishan Lal Khanna, the respondent, herein, against the appellant-wife Smt, Raj Khanna, under siction 10 of the Act.

(2.) The parties were married on July. 5, 1956 at Delhi. On May 21, 1957 a daughter was born oat of the wedlock According to the husband, ti'e appellant left his house on October 24, 1957onthe plea that she was to visit her parents for the Tikkaf estival the next day. She had stated that she would stay on with her parents till the marriage of her brother in November, 19.17, which however, took place in April 1958. But she never returned, inspite of the several alleged approaches from the respondent's side. The appellant was ins ervice ; and the respondent considered that perhaps to be the cause of her indifferent attitude- and separation. He, therefore, asked her to leave the service, which she refused to do. Under the circumstances, the appellant was accused of having deserted the respondent which now is for over 13 years,

(3.) On October 26, 196 the respondent filed a petition under section 10 of the Act the judicial separation as according to him, the appellant had abandoned him without any reasonable cause and with no intention to return The appellant in reply contested the respondent's claim and stated that she never had the intention of living apart from him She was fore-d to live with her parents as the respondent made things hot for her. Regarding her service, the appellant stated that this fact was known to the respondent before the marriage and this was in fact one of the attractions for him in seeking her hand in m-marriage. She denied that she had left the respondent's house on any pretext with the intention of leaving for good. On the other hand. all her Jewellery and valuables were still with the respondent and the appellant infact, was never allowed their use. According to the appellant the respondent and his fimily regarded her as inauspicious Various unfortunate events in the family were attributed to her presence in the house. She was in fact asked to go to her parents place on the plea that the respondent was extremely busy in preparing for his law examination. She was not invited to the respondent's sister's marriage in April 1957. Inspite of that she attended the same on her own accord, but was mal-treated and insulted on that occusion. The birth of the female child further annoyed the respondent's parents and she as also the child was conidered inauspicious. The respondent's failure for a second time in his law examination and subsequent illoess were all atributed to the inauspicious advent of the ceild in the family. It was on the repeated asking of the repondent and his parents that the appellant had to go to her parents house. The appellant also alleged that she and bar chid were mal-treated and beaten.