MANJIT KAUR Vs. NIRMAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been brought by the wife against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, dated May, 7, 1910, whereby her petition for divorce on the ground of desertion was dismissed.

(2.) In support of her case she had examined only one witness Chanan, Singh P. W. 2 apart from her own statement and the statement of her father. Their statements were considered by the trial Court and found unreliable. It is unnecessary to repeat these reasons again in this judgment. On the other hand, the respondent, apart from other witnesees, examined Santa Singh, a member of the Panchayat of the village of the appellant. He deposed that the husband along with 10/12 persons of the village had approached the father of the appellant to take her with him Many people of the village of the appellant were also joined in that Panchayat. Teja Singh, father of the appellant, promised that she would be sent to the matrimonial home after 8 days. The husband again came after 8 days but had to go back alone as the appellant refused to go with him and threatened to commit suicide. Nothing has been brought on record to discredit the statement of this witness who being a co-villager of the appellant and member Panchayat of her village, would be sympathetic towards her instead of the husband who belongs to a different village. Simply because a suggestion has been made to him that he has been opposed in the election by the father of the appellant, It cannot be inferred that the witness was inimical towards her This suggestion was categorically denied and instead he said that Teja Singh was his supporter. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, relying on Tara Chand v. Smt. Narain Devi, 1976 AIR(P&H) 300. urged that the fact that the respondent never came to bring the appellant for 2-1/2 years would be sufficient to raise a presumption that she has been deserted send that it was because of the circumstances created by the respondent that she was forced to live apart. None of these contentions has any merit and the decision relied upon has no bearing whatsoever on the facts of the present case. Apart from the ipst dixit of the appellant that there was a demand of Rs.500/- by the husband, there is absolutely no evidence on the record to support that allegation nor is there the slightest suggestion that she was not treated well by the respondent during her stay with him. Consequently, there is no scope for interferring with the finding recorded by the trial Court and this appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.