GURU BACHAN KAUR Vs. PREETAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal arising under Section 28 of the Family Courts Act filed by the wife appellant attacking the judgment and decree of Sri Surendra Pratap Mishra, Family Court Judge, Allahabad dated 10-3-1997 in case No. 293 of 1991 by virtue of which the divorce was granted to the respondent (wife) on the ground of marriage has been broken down and as there is no hope of revival as 14 years have passed and both husband and wife have deserted each other.

(2.) The brief facts which are culled out from the appeal as well as written statement and from the record are as follows :-The parties are Sikh by faith. The petitioner-respondent is working as an auditor in the office of the Accountant General, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad and now is aged about 51 years. The marriage of the petitioner-respondent was solemnized with the respondent-appellant on 31-5-1982 at Varanasi. The appellant-wife is an educated lady. She has done her B.Sc., B.Ed., M.A. and P.L. and she is employed as P.T. teacher in Durga Charan Das Girls Inter College, Sonarpura, Varanasi. She was enjoying the same status at the time of the marriage. It is alleged by the petitioner-respondent that he has given "saris" and clothes of worth Rs. 3,000.00 and 12 tolas of gold to the respondent-appellant at the time of the marriage. There is no dispute that the marriage was consumated. The respondent-appellant after marriage remained with the petitioner-respondent till 5-7-1982 and then she left for Varanasi and on the petitioner-respondents willingness the respondent wife-appellant came to Allahabad in Sept. 1982 but left for Varanasi after two days despite objections. She also remained with thepetitioner-respondent in Nov. 1982 for a month and in the last week of Dec. 1982 father of the respondent-appellant came to Allahabad and represented that there was a marriage in the family and she be sent. Despite letters and verbal requests the respondent-appellant has not turned up from Dec. 1982 to join the conjugal life and she has deserted the husband for more than seven years before the filing of the petitioner. There is also an allegation that the respondent-appellant is a teacher in some institution and has refused to live with the petitioner-respondent i.e. husband and perform the marital duty at Allahabad. In an oblique manner the petitioner-respondent alleges that the respondent-appellant has her own environment at Varanasi and does not want to come to Allahabad. It is also alleged that the respondent-appellant humiliated the petitioner-respondent by way of calling "white haired sikh" and it has amounted into cruelty.The version of the respondent-appellant is of pure denial with the following explanations. In additional plea the respondent-appellant has stated that a house was taken at Preetam Nagar Colony at Allahabad so that they can live together. It is also stated by the respondent-appellant that her husband is under the influence of his sister, who is unmarried, and dances to the tune of her command as well as his mother. According to the respondent-appellant that she has taken leave even in 1983 and has been residing with her husband at Allahabad. She has also been residing with her husband in holidays despite taunts and humiliation of her sister-in-law. The respondent-appellant has asserted that she has maintained the conjugal relations off and on and on account of exisgency of the service and lastly in June, 1989. Reference will also be made later on of two letters written by the wife-respondent-appellant to her father regarding treatment which she is receiving at her in-laws house and the letter written by her husband.The Family Court relied upon the statements of the wife and husband and other material on record and came to the finding that the version of petitioner-respondent of cruelty has not been proved and as such it does not amount to humiliation. The learned Family Court Judge was of the view that they have deserted each other and the marriage has broken down for the last 14 years.Feeling aggrieved the appellant has filed the present appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant Shri T.P. Singh has submitted that the Family Court has committed mistake by holding that it is a case of mutual desertion. He has further submitted that the Family Court fell in error after holding that cruelty and desertion has not been proved, the decree of divorce could not have been granted. He further submitted that the appellant-respondent was doing job at Varanasi at the instance of husband. He further stated that despite reconciliation the petitioner-respondent did not agree to resume the marital relations.