RAKESH KUMAR PATHAK Vs. KIRAN PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unfortunate case of a claim for decree of divorce by the appellant against the respondent wife on the ground that besides deserting him, the wife has. treated him with cruelty inasmuch as she did not allow him access even at the earlier days of their marriage. According to him, the marriage was performed on 29-6-1980 at Mandla and between 30th June, 1980 and 4th July, 1980, the respondent visited him at Jabalpur for a few days. She did not allow his access as a result of which the marriage remained unconsummated although both of them were fit for sexual intercourse. On 5-7-1980 the respondent, alleges the appellant, left him to continue her services as a teacher somewhere in the Mandla district. It may be mentioned that the petitioner/appellant is working as a mechanic at Jabalpur in Public Works Department and, therefore, naturally insisted the respondent to live with him at Jabalpur. The respondent filed the written statement and denied the allegations levelled against her. However, she never expressed her anxiety to join the appellant at Jabalpur. After filing the written statement, she absented herself and participated in no further proceedings. Consequently, evidence was recorded in her absence and the Court decided the matter ex-parte.

(2.) At the trial, the appellant examined himself and also his maternal uncle, Biharilal Upadhyaya as A.W. 2. Needless to say that their version remained uncontroverted/unchallenged. Still the lower Court held that the allegations have not been proved and the requirements of law have not been satisfied in awarding a decree of divorce to the appellant. The finding further is that the appellant could not establish that the respondent wife prevented him to have sexual intercourse with her. On these findings, his claim has been dismissed. He has, therefore, preferred this appeal.

(3.) It may be mentioned that after this appeal was filed in this Court, several attempts were made to bring about reconciliation, appellant every time expressing that he is willing to take the respondent (his wife) with him. The respondent has not joined the appellant even now.