NATHOOMAL Vs. MOHINIBAI @ CHANDRA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant made an unsuccessful attempt in the lower Court to obtain the decree of divorce against the respondent-wife on the ground that she deserted the appellant for a period of more than two years before the filing of the suit.

(2.) The marriage between the parties was solemnised at Ujjain on 17-3-1973. The parties lived at Bhopal as husband and wife upto 12-2-1975. During this period, the respondent visited her parents at Ujjain rather frequently. On 12-2-1975, the respondent left the appellant's home with her uncle. Thereafter she did not come back to her husband's place although she did visit Bhopal once. The appellant inferred from the respondent's conduct in thus going away that she deserted him. The basis for this inference is alleged to be that respondent's insulting and disrespectful attitude towards her mother-in-law and also towards the appellant and her insistence to live separately and away from her mother-in-law. According to the appellant, this belief came to be true when all his attempts to bring the respondent back failed and she claimed separate maintenance. Although cruelty on the part of the respondent was also alleged, but that ground was abandoned by the appellant, at the time of argument before this Court and, therefore, that aspect of the case need not be discussed.

(3.) The respondent denied any desertion on her part. She pleads that on 12-2.1975, she went with her uncle to her parents' place as usual and with the permission of the appellant and his mother. She never refused to go to the appellant and was at all material time and even during trial and even now is ready to go to the appellant. No attempts were made to get her back. Neither the appellant nor any of his relatives ever went to fetch her back. The allegations as to ill-treatment to the mother-in-law are denied. So also is denied the allegation that she ever wanted to live away from her mother-in-law or other relatives. It had been her case that the appellant did not take her back and she never intended to put cohabitation at an end. Even before this Court, the learned counsel appearing for her reiterated her willingness to join the appellant and live with him. The lower Court on assessment of oral and documentary evidence found 'no desertion' on the part of the respondent and, therefore, dismissed the suit.