URMILA SUDHAKAR BHALEKAR Vs. SUDHAKAR AMBAJI BHALEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of petition filed for divorce by the Respondent-husband, on the ground of desertion. The learned Extra Assistant Judge allowed the petition of the husband and dissolved the marriage by decree of divorce between the Petitioner- Appellant and the Respondent. The wife has filed this appeal challenging the decree passed for dissolution of marriage.

(2.) Shri Kulkarni, appearing for the Appellant, contended that the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act are not properly understood. According to him, on the basis of evidence on record, it cannot be said that the wife is guilty of desertion. According to him, the conduct of the Respondent-husband is responsible for the separation between the two.

(3.) I am unable to appreciate contention of Shri Kulkarni. The learned trial Judge has considered the entire evidence on record and also found during trial that the parties were not ready for reconciliation. From the evidence on record, it is quite evident that number of years prior to the filing of the petition, they were living separately and the conduct indicates that they had ceased to cohabit and had no desire to resume cohabitation at all. Apart from the allegations made by the husband and the wife against each other, there is documentary evidence on record indicating the conduct of the parties. The notices and the replies were exchanged between the parties as far as in the year 1980. Criminal complaints were also filed against each other, though resulted in acquittal. The Appellant-wife had also applied for maintenance under Sec. 125, Cr. P.C. in the year 1982. The appellant had also filed a civil suit for obtaining injunction restraining the husband from contracting second marriage. The suit was filed in the year 1981, though there is no evidence that the husband has, in fact, married second time. In this background, the husband has filed petition for dissolution of marriage.