USHA Vs. LAXMI NARAYAN NAGAICH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parties to the proceedings were married according to Hindu rites in the month of February, 1985 at village Parichhat Hanota, Tahsil and District Sagar. The appellant/defendant lived with the respondent/plaintiff in his house till June 1985. The husband/respondent filed a petition, under Section 13(l)(ia)and 13(l)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the allegations that the appellant/wife left her place of residence in the month of June,' 1985 and inspite of his best efforts to call her back the appellants/wife refused to come back to the respondent's house and the appellant/wife is not discharging her marital functions and, therefore, that tantamounts to a cruelty.

(2.) THE defence, it is the case of the appellant/wife that she got pregnant and when she was pregnant, she was illitreated by the respondent/husband and driven her out of the house and since then she was forced to live with her brothers and the respondent/husband in spite of the birth of a child has not visited her. Thus, the respondent/husband himself has deserved the appellant/wife and, therefore, he in not entitled to a decree of divorce.

(3.) THE plaintiff/respondent has examined himself as P. W. 1 and has stated that after the marriage the appellant/defendant came to his place of residence 2 -3 times only and left the plaintiff's house in June 1985 and thereafter she never returned back to his house, although he went two times So call her back and the appellant/defendant specifically refused to go with him. It is further stated that he has kept the appellant nicely, he has never demanded any dowry, nor his given any illtreatment to her. In the cross examination also he has reiterated that the appellant/defendant refused to go with him Nothing has been brought about by the defence in the cross -examination of this witness. Another witness examined by the respondent/plaintiff is Jagdish Prasad Soni who has stated that when he asked the appellant/wife as to why she does not want to live with her husband she replied that she does not wish to live with him and that from June 1985 till date of evidence they arc not living together. In the cross -examination of this witness nothing has been brought about to prove that the statement of this witness is not reliable. It would be pertinent to note that the appellant/defendant had not entered the witness -box to contradict the facts stated by the respondent/husband in his evidence nor to support her case.