P.V.VEERARAGHAVAN Vs. T.S.PARVATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband, whose petition under S.10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) was dismissed by the District Court, is the appellant before us. He sought a decree for judicial separation on the ground of desertion by the respondent wife. While the appellant in his petition says that the marriage was on 18-4-1944, the respondent in her counter avers that is was on 6th Medom 1121 corresponding to 19-4-1946. However, it is the common case that the respondent was a minor on the date of marriage. The parties follow Hindu Mitakshara Law, and the marriage was in accordance with Hindu Sastras. According to the respondent she was taken to the appellant's ancestral home at Porkalam on 8th Edavom 1121 (22-5-1946) and the nuptial ceremony (im´n aplqÀ¯w) was conducted there on 11th Dhanu 1124 (25-12-1948). The appellant was employed in the Income Tax Department in 1947, and thereafter he was working in several places away from Porkalam. However, he did not take his wife along with him to any of these stations.

(2.) The appellant's case is that since he was getting only a very meagre salary which was insufficient to maintain a home, he desired and directed the respondent to live in his ancestral home where his parents and brothers were residing. According to the appellant he used to go home every week end and whenever he could obtain leave. It is averred that his intention was to make the ancestral home at Porkalam their matrimonial home. The appellant further avers that the respondent steadfastly and continuously refused to live there. This, according to the appellant, constitutes desertion as contemplated by S.10(i)(a) of the Act. The respondent stoutly denies these allegations. She asserts that from and after 13-5-1124 (27-12-1948) she was permanently residing in the appellant's ancestral home at Porkalam along with his parents, and that she had gone to her parental home to spent a few days there only occasionally and that with the permission of the appellant's father (PW 4). It is also her case that the appellant was visiting his ancestral home only very rarely. The main question that arises for consideration is as to which of these two versions is factually true.

(3.) Ext. D1 series are letters sent by appellant's father (PW 4) to the respondent's father. It is clear from Ext. D1 which is the earliest of the letters and is dated 3-2-1128 (19-9-1952) that the marital life of the appellant and respondent had become strained and unhappy some time prior to that. PW 4, in his letter expresses his anguish and helplessness over the conduct of his son, the appellant. The tone of the letter is even apologetic. PW 4 has therein written that all attempts by himself and his friends in respect of his son were futile, and that he is very much grieved over the unhappiness and sufferings of the respondent, as well as over the worry of her parents. Ext. D1(b) is a letter dated 23-4-1957. Here PW 4 refers to the respondent as having stated that he (PW 4) seems to be not anxious about his son, as otherwise he would have persuaded the appellant to come home. PW 4 in that letter reiterates his helplessness to persuade his son to visit the ancestral house. In that letter PW 1 writes, that he met his son at Ernakulam, and 7 'with tears in his eyes' requested the appellant to go home (aTw) and to pacify his mother. Ext. D1(b) proceeds to say that though the appellant assured PW 4 that he (appellant) would be going home, he failed to go. Ext. D1(c) is another letter by PW 4 to the respondent's father, and is dated 6-3-1967. That letter shows as to how much PW 4 and respondent's parents were grieved over the respondent's sufferings and heartburns. These letters written in 1952-1957 and 1967 also reveal that the appellant's parents were very affectionate towards the respondent and that they were really worried over the conduct (whatever that conduct be) of their son, the appellant before us.