SHEETAL RAJU MALHOTRA Vs. RAJU ROOPNARAIAN MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 28 of Hindu Marriage act, 1955 (for short "the Act") is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th June, 2001 rendered by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bombay by which the application under section 13 (1) (i-a) , (i-b) of the Act filed by the respondent-husband seeking dissolution of marriage has been allowed only on the ground of desertion and the marriage of the parties has been dissolved by decree of divorce.

(2.) The respondent had filed the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion stating that the appellant-wife often used to quarrel with him and his family members since she wanted to stay separate from the members of the family. She also used to frequently visit her parents' home. A specific reference to the alleged incident dated 1st December, 1991 was made on which date, according to the respondent, 10-12 gundas came to his house, they abused and quarrelled with him and tried to forcibly took away the appellant with them to her parents' house. Since the respondent refused to send her with them, they assaulted him and his brothers - Mahesh and Vijay. The respondent informed the police, who arrived at the spot and took one Champa and her son Haresh to the police station. The respondent's brother - Vijay was sent for treatment to the hospital. From police station the parents of the appellant took her to their place and since then she never returned to her matrimonial home. It appears that the complaint under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code was also lodged one month after the alleged incident dated 1-12-1991. That criminal case ultimately ended in acquittal. According to the respondent, the appellant wanted him to stay separately for which mentally he was not prepared, apart from the fact that financially it was not possible for him to have separate residence. The appellant resisted the petition for divorce by filing written statement stating that during her short stay at matrimonial home she was treated like a maid servant and was made to do household work like cooking, washing utensils and clothes of entire family etc. Occasionally, she was given stale food and there was also a demand of dowry and for fulfilment of the demand she was subjected to cruelty by the respondent and other family members.

(3.) The parties substantiated their case by entering the witness box themselves besides relying upon the pleadings and other material. They also examined 1-2 witnesses each in support of their case. The trial Court on consideration of the entire material brought on record decreed the petition on the ground of desertion only, as provided under section 13 (1) (i-b) of the Act, holding that the appellant voluntarily withdrew herself from the company of the respondent for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of this petition, without just and valid reason and never made any efforts to return to the matrimonial house or for reconciliation. As a matter of fact the appellant, it is held, did not give positive response to the efforts made by the respondent for reconciliation.