KRISHAN KUMAR SHARMA Vs. SARLESH KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the husband is directed against the judgment dated 26-11-1983 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby his petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and(ib)of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed.

(2.) The appellant had filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. As regards the findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge on cruelty the learned counsel has not chalienged the same and has confined his arguments in this appeal only to the question of desertion. Various allegations regarding desertion have been levelled in the petition. However, in this appeal the learned counsel confined bis arguments to three particular periods when the respondent left the matrimonial home. The first period commenced on 2-12-1969 and ended on .11-4-1970, The second period is from 28-6-1970 to 21-8-1973 and the third period is from May 1974 till January 1978. It is alleged in the petition that the parties were married on 25- 11-1969 at Delhi and the respondent left the matrimonial home without the consent and permission of the appellanton 2-12-1969. The entire petition is based on the acts of cruelty commencing right from the first night of the marriage. The learned counsel was unable to make good any allegation levelled against the respondent and as such rightly he confined his arguments to the question of desertion. The <PG>322</PG> respondent returned to the matrimonial home on 21-4-1970 and after staying for about two months again left on 28-6-1970 and returned on 21-8-1973. Admittedly from 21-8-1973 to May 1974 she stayed in the matrimonial home. Further averments in the petition are that the parties were staying happily for about two months and thereafter the bickering again started and the respondent left in Mayl974. The question which would call for consideration is as to whether the respondent left the matrimonial home voluntarily and with the intention of bringing the marriage to an end.

(3.) I have been taken through the entire evidence on record. The evidence of the appellant and his witnesses in fact are so useless that even the learned counsel could not place any strong reliance on the evidence. It would be worth-while to mention that the mother of the appellant has appeared as Public Witness 3 She deposed that right from the first day the respondent was not satisfied with the articles given by them in "Wari" and as such she gave a sum of Rs, 6.000.00 on the asking of the respondent so that she could buy sarees etc., of her own choice. The statement of Public Witness 3 who had allegedly given the amount has been improved by the all other witnesses. All other witnesses who are again near relations of the appellant deposed that the respondent had demanded a sum of Rs. 4000.00 towards expenses incurrred by her father on entertaining the marriage party and Rs. 2000.00 for buying sarees and this amount was paid by the mother of the appellant. Further PW 3 made an allegation that the mother and sister of the respondent along with the respondent had given beating to her and she had become unconscious The other witnesses have tried to improve this version by staying that Public Witness 3 had told them that after beating her she snatched the keys from her and took away cash and certain papers from the aimrah. The allegation was not made by Public Witness 3 in her statement. Further the aippellant himself has, made reckless allegations about the character of the respondent and has even put suggestions regarding the same to the witness of the respondent. According to the suggestions and the allegations the respondent was having illicit relations with her own 'brother-in-law and another respondent's witness namely, Sbri Kewal were not even attempted to be substantiated in appeal. This show the extent to which the appellant and his witnesses have gone. Since I find enough documentary evidence on record I have preferred to ignore the oral evidence.