SUMAN SINGH Vs. TULSI RAM PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 directed against the judgment and decree dated 25. 3. 1994 passed by District Judge, Damoh in C. S. No. 18-A of 1990.

(2.) THE respondent Tulsiram Patel filed an application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter 'the Act') for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. He stated in his application that the appellant Suman Singh was married to him in the month of May, 1987 at Damoh in accordance with the Hindu rites. It was stated that after marriage, the appellant cohabited with him for 5 to 6 days and, thereafter, in April, 1988 she came back to Damoh and remained there for a period of one month. Thereafter, she did not return to Damoh from her village after May, 1988. The result-was that the respondent was compelled to file an application under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the appellant was not allowed to go back to her matrimonial home. Despite the fact that a search warrant was issued the appellant did not come back to her matrimonial home. The other allegation in the application was that the appellant misbehaved with the respondent and treated him and the members of his family with cruelty. She did not cooperate with the members of the family of the respondent and she used to treat them with harsh language. She used to say that she was married to paupers. It was further alleged that the appellant did not turn up despite her knowledge that the respondent's elder brother had expired and alleged to have stated that the entire family be exterminated. It appears that this statement was made by the appellant with a view to show the degree of repulsion felt by the appellant against the respondent and the members of his family.

(3.) THE appellant, however, denied that she had misbehaved with the respondent or members of his family and caused them mental trouble. She denied the allegations of cruelty and made a counter allegation to the effect that the members of the family of the respondent themselves treated her with great cruelty and turned out of her matrimonial home. It was claimed that the respondent was demanding dowry and, therefore, she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and denied that she deserted the respondent voluntarily.