MEERABAI Vs. LAXMINARAYAN MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-wife, having suffered a decree dissolving her marriage with the respondent, under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has filed the present first appeal under section 28 thereof, against the judgment and decree dated 31-8-1981, passed by Shri S. N. Dixit, Fifth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur.

(2.) It is admitted that the parties were married in June, 1970, at Damoh, according to Hindu rites. After the marriage, the wife lived with the husband till 11-2-1972, when she was taken by her father for performing some religious ceremony. The appellant's father had assured that she would be sent back after Holi festival. When she refused to accompany the husband, a petition under section 9 of the Act was filed by the husband. The appellant also filed an application for maintenance tinder section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is alleged that the petition under section 9 of the Act was fixed for hearing on 11-11-1975, when a compromise was reached between the parties ; but the said petition was got dismissed by the respondent-husband for want of prosecution. The compromise was alleged to be that the appellant would come to stay with the respondent-husband. Inspite of it, she did not go to live with the husband even though the husband went to fetch her several times. Thereafter, petition for divorce was filed The learned trial Court, on consideration of evidence on record, held that the appellant was not sent back by her parents after 12-2-1972, even though several efforts were made by the respondent-husband in this regard. Her allegation that she was not properly treated, as she has not brought anything in dowry, was not found proved. Similarly, her allegation that she was beaten and was being forced to write a Talaqnama was also not found proved. It was held by the trial Court that the respondent-husband got his suit dismissed on an agreement that she will come to stay with him, but inspite of it, she refused to come and live with the husband. On these facts, it was found that she had been living separately since 1972 ; and has refuses to come to live with the husband inspite of husband's several efforts in this regard. It was, therefore, held that she has deserted without any reasonable cause and, hence, the impugned decree was passed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that conclusion of the trial Court that she deserted, is based on the only fact that the appellant is living separately. This, according to the learned counsel not sufficient to constitute desertion within the meaning of section 13 of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the conclusion of the trial Court is not based on her living separately alone, but the same is based on the fact that she has refused to accompany him, though he had gone to bring her several times. Her intention is therefore, reflected in her adamant attitude and refusal to accompany the husband.