KIRPAL SINGH Vs. HARBANS KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal from order is directed against the judgment of Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dated 26th August, 1965, dismissing the petition by the husband for a decree of judicial separation.

(2.) Kirpal Singh (hereafter referred to as the husband) was married to Shrimati Harbans Kaur (hereafter referred to as the wife) on 9th September, 1952, at Muzaffarnagar. He filed this petition under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the wife for a decree of judicial separation on the ground of desertion. It was alleged by the husband that after the marriage the parties resided together in Delhi but no child was born out of the wedlock, that the wife stayed with the husband for 3 or 4 months and then deserted him without any reasonable cause continuously for 3 years ; that thereafter as a result of persuasion by some common friends and relations, the wife came to reside with the husband in the year 1957 but again in ' June 1959 left her marital abode without his consent and without any reasonable cause; that all efforts on the part of the husband to bring back the wife failed; that in December 1959 the wife came to the husband's residence in connection with Akhand Path, stayed there for 2 or 3 days and left thereafter with a promise to come back after tendering her resignation from the school where she had been employed for quite some time; and that in spite of the promise she did not return. The wife in Her written-statement admitted the marriage and that she lived with tha husband for some time but denied any desertion on her part. She stated in the written-statement that she was prepared to live with the husband. Her defence further was that the husband had treated her with cruelty; that she was administered poison once by the husband, and that tha husband had once locked her up in aroom from where she was freed by the intervention of the police. The wife also denied that the husband or his father or any relative ever made any effort or request to her to return to the husband's house. The case of the wife was that the husband in his design to get rid of her wanted her to acknowledge in writing that she did not like to stay with him which she was not prepared to do.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties the following two issues were framed:-