DHARAM DEV MALIK Vs. RAJ RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal springs from judgment dated 30th September 1982 of an Additional District Judge whereby he dismissed the petition of the appellant/husband for divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty as being without merit.

(2.) The carriage between the parties was solemnised on 7th October 1964 at Sonepat, to which place the parents of the respondent/wife belonged, in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. Thereafter, they lived together as husband and wife at 123/2, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi, uptil January 1966. The said house had been allotted to the father of the appellant as a railway employee and as such the parties were living with him as members of his family. A son was born to the respondent in December 1965. However, the appellant does not own his paternity). Since January 1966 onwards the respondent has been living at Sonepat with her parents. The contention of the appellant is that she left her matrimonial home on 19th January 1966 for Sonepat without his consent and against his wishes and she has not returned to her matrimonial home despite repeated efforts having been made by him i.e. the appellant, from time to time to bring her back to her matrimonial home. Hence, he seeks divorce on the ground of desertion by the respondent without any just cause.

(3.) It may be pertinent to give here the past history of litigation which had been going on between the parties prior to filing of this petition on 28th November 1981. The appellant had earlier moved a petition being H.M.A. No. 246/73 for judicial separation sometime in 1973. The grounds for judicial separation were desertion, cruelty and adultery. It was, inter alia, averred by the appellant that he had gone to Chandausi for training on or about 18th March 1965 and while he was still there, he learnt that the respondent was pregnant. On coming to know of it he was completely dazed and shocked because the respondent had not conceived the child from him. So he rushed back to Sonepat and enquired from the respondent as to how the conception had taken place but the respondent refused to give any answer. So, smelling some foul play he kept a strict watch over her movements. One day in August 1965 he came back home at about 3 P.M. and instead of knocking at the door he pushed open the window of the room and to his great astonishment and annoyance he found that the respondent was in a compromising position with his youngest brother and they were having sexual inter course. However, the youngest brother of the appellant ran away through the rear door of the house and the respondent bolted the room from inside. She refused to open the door. Meanwhile the mother of the appellant too came there. He then brought all these facts to the notice of his parents but they pacified the appellant saying that they would themselves look into the matter. However, on one night towards the end of year 1965 the father of the appellant saw the youngest brother of the appellant sneaking into the bedroom of the respondent at an odd hour, viz., at about 2.30 A.M. (night) and he was accosted by his father. Thereafter the respondent left the appellant in or about the end of the year 1965 or beginning of 1966 for Sonepat without any rhyme or reason. (See Ex. P 1, copy of the previous petition).