NANAK RAM Vs. SANTOSHIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment dated 10. 5. 1995 passed in F. A. No. 141/95. Respondent was put on notice vide Court order dated 12. 3. 1998 and thereafter both parties were summoned in person for exploring the possibility of settlement. However, all the efforts in this direction came cropper and that is how this appeal after its admission for hearing is being disposed of at this stage.

(2.) APPELLANT married respondent on 17. 12. 1988. They, however, allegedly separated some time in January, 1991. Appellant filed petition for a decree of divorce on twin grounds of desertion and cruelty alleging that respondent had continuously deserted her for more than two years and was not interested in returning to his society and that she had treated him with cruelty by going away with one Bhagwan Narain Baba. Appellant examined some witnesses and so did the respondent in support of their respective claims. The appellant's case found favour with Trial Court resulting in passing the decree of divorce against respondent.

(3.) RESPONDENT took appeal (F. A. No. 141/95) against the decree and the first Appellate Court on reappraisal and appreciation of evidence on record reversed the Trial Court's findings on the two issues of desertion and cruelty and upset the decree of dissolution of marriage passed by the Trial Court. On the question of desertion it found from evidence on record that a notice was sent, by respondent Santoshibai to appellant on 18. 4. 1991 requiring him to take her to his house for cohabitation. But appellant did not do anything in the matter. It also held that when appellant was 'inactive' for restitution of conjugal right, he cannot be permitted to utilise the separation for purpose of getting a decree for divorce. The desertion should be coupled with animus deserendi which was missing in the present case. It was accordingly held against appellant on the issue of desertion.