AJAI SINGH PANWAR Vs. MANJU RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the husband who has remained unsuccessful in securing a decree of divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). The parties to the litigation were married on 24th January, 1976, at Muradabad when the appellant was employed as a Senior Laboratory Assistant in the Central Scientific Instruments Organisation, Chandigarh, and the respondent-wife was working as a Lecturer in Prabha Devi Inter College, Muradabad.

(2.) As per the allegations in the petition, the parties, just after the marriage, returned to Delhi where the father of the appellant is settled and stayed there up to 7th of February, 1976. It was there that the marriage was consummated From there, the respondent-wife went along with her father to Muradabad to rejoin her duties in the College. On 3rd of March, 1976, the appellant went to Muradabad to attend the marriage of Kamlesh, younger sister of the respondent and from there, returned to Delhi on 5th March, 1976 along with the respondent. They continued to live together at one place or the other up to the crucial date of 18th December, 1976, when the respondent is alleged to have deserted the appellant. On 18th December, 1976, both of them had gone to Muradabad on the receipt of a telegram about the death of Kamlesh, younger sister of the respondent. After attending to the various ceremonies there, the appellant returned to Chandigarh, whereas the respondent stayed back at Muradabad. Since the respondent did not join the appellant at Chandigarh, he went to Muradabad on 30th of December, 1976, to bring her back. She, however, declined to cone along on the ground of ill-health. Later, a good number of letters are stated to have been exchanged between the parties ; the appellant asking for the return of the respondent, the latter declining to do so either on the pretext of her ill-health of having the responsibility to look after the infant son of Kamlesh, at the time of whose delivery, she had died on 14th December, 1976. In some of these letters, she also explained that she was undergoing some homoeopathy treatment for her ailment. The allegation further is that during all this period from the date of marriage to 18th of December, 1976, the appellant had been impressing upon the respondent to leave her job and to come and settled with him According to the appellant, towards the end of January, 1977, the respondent expressed her complete inability to join him. Not only that, she even levelled false and concocted allegations of misbehaviour and mental torture against him which, is per his stand, also amounted to cruelty towards him. It is on the twin ground of desertion and cruelty that the appellant sought divorce from the respondent. The short and concise stand of the respondent all through has been that neither she had any intention to desert the appellant nor had she in fact done so. According to her, she and her father have been making repeated efforts to make her settle in the house of the appellant. In order to achieve this end, she even resigned from the job of Lecturer in the Prabha Devi Inter College, Muradabad. She also denied any cruelty towards him. As already indicated, the trial Court found that the appellant has failed to substantiate any of the above-noted grounds for divorce.

(3.) The whole submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the lower Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has thus wrongly non-suited him. Having gone through the record of the case and hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length, I find no merit in the above noted stand of the learned counsel.