PRAKASH WATI Vs. P C VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a wife's appeal against the judgment and decree of an Additional District Judge, Delhi, granting the husband's petition for divorce on the ground of desertion.

(2.) The parties hereto were married at Agra on February 21, 1958. After marriage they lived at Delhi. They have been separated since January 11, 1974 according to the respondent-husband. According to the appellant she was initially turned out of the matrimonial home by the respondent on January 11, 1974 but she came back and lived with him in February, 1975. She was again turned out in March, 1975. On August 14/16, 1975 the respondent filed in application under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for grant of a decree for judicial separation. The grounds on which be claimed judicial separation, were cruelty, desertion by the wife and the wife suffering from a communicable disease. This petition was resisted. On May 27,1976 the Act was amended by the marriage laws (amendment) Act. In consequence the respondent moved on application to amend his petition under Section 10 of the Act one under Section 13 of the Act. By this amended petition the respondent claimed divorce on the same three grounds on which he had earlier claimed judicial separation. This petition was strongly resisted. The impugned judgment and decree was passed on September 1, 1977. By it the respondent's plea regarding cruelty and communicable disease were not accepted but he was granted a decree for divorce on the ground of desertion. Dissatisfied with the said decree the wife appeals to this court.

(3.) At the trial the parties led hardly any oral evidence. The appellant and respondent only examined themselves, as T their respective witnesses. There is some documentary evidence on record to which I will advert hereafter. Surprisingly a large number of documents were placed on record by the appellant but she never proved them before me. Her case has been that there was no cogent proof of desertion by her and the petition of the respondent being premature was liable to be dismissed.