AMRAT Vs. THAGIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23rd November, 1994 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 22-A/92 by Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Sendhwa whereby Court dismissed the suit filed Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the husband filed petition Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the allegation that the marriage took place between the plaintiff and the defendants 17 to 20 years before, out of this wedlock the defendant is having 3 children. Eldest daughter Sangeeta is 13-years; son Vijyendra is aged about 10 years, and younger son, Jitendra is aged about 7 years. For last some years both are residing separately. The daughter Sangeeta and son Jitendra are residing with the defendant-wife and another son Vijyendra is residing with the plaintiff-husband. Plaintiff filed the petition on the ground that the behaviour of the wife is not decent and she is always quarrelling. She had also insisted the husband to live separately with his family members and on not doing so she had threatened to commit suicide. It was further alleged that in the year 1987 lie separated from his brother and started living in village Atroli. At village Alroli the respondent-wife had kept her parents with her. Thereafter it was submitted that in the year 1989 she left the house of her husband and went to village Masawad to her parents and started living with her parents. The suit was denied by the wife. Issues were framed and evidence was recorded. Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and also examined Lotan (PW-2) and Jangu (PW-3 ). Respondent-wife also examined herself as DW-1 and also examined Uttam (DW-2 ). After appreciating the evidence of both the parties, the Trial Court found that neither the behaviour of the respondent was cruel nor she had separated herself from her husband and on the contrary found that the plaintiff has himself deserted the defendant from 1989 though she is willing to come and live with the husband but husband himself has not brought her back and dismissed the suit for divorce. Against the said judgment and decree, the appellant/husband has filed this appeal.

(3.) I have heard Mr. B. L. Pavecha, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Mrs. Sadhiia Pathak, for appellant and Mr. S. L. Ahiwasi, learned Counsel for respondent.