KANAKMAL Vs. PUSHPABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the jugement and decree dated 9-1-1985 passed by the IInd Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Mandsaur, in Civil Suit No. 11 of 1982 (Hindu Marriage Act).

(2.) The material facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows : The appellant in the husband of the respondent. The marriage of the parties was solemnized in the year 1972 according to Hindu rities. The respondent lived with the appellant at village Lasudiya in Mandsaur district. A daughter was born to the parties. It is alleged by the appellant that the respondent left the matrimonial home in the year 1977 on the pretext of attending Tilak ceremony of her brother and thereafter she did not return to him. The respondent also took away gold ornaments weighing 63 tollas valued at Rs. 1,00,000.00. Out of the gold ornaments taken away by the respondent ornaments weighing 40 tollas were given by the appellant at the time of marriage and ornaments weighing 23 tollas were gifted by the parents of the respondent. The respondent thus deserted the appellant since the year 1977. It is further alleged by the appellant that the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty. The respondent sent several letters to the appellant in which she made reckless allegations against the character of the appellant. The respondent also terminated the pregnancy without the consent of the appellant. This act of the respondent also constitute cruelty. The appellant, therefore, filed the present petition for dissolution of the marriage by decree of divorce.

(3.) The respondent denied the allegations of the appellant. She denied that she had taken the gold ornaments with her and that the substantial portions of the ornaments were with the appellant. She further stated that the ornaments were the Stri Dhan property. She denied that she has deserted the appellant. She stated that she was always ready and wiling to live with the appellant but she wanted an assurance from him that he would not illtreat her but the appellant did not give such assurance. She also denied that she treated the appellant with cruelty or that she made any allegation against the character of the appellant.