RAM CHAND Vs. BHAJAN KAUR ALIAS BHAJNO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The marriage between the parties stands dissolved by a decree of divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short, the Act) at the instance of the respondent wife. She pleaded two grounds for securing that decree, that is, cruelty and desertion on the part of the present appellant. While non-suiting her on the first ground, the lower Court has granted the decree on the basis of the second ground. Interestingly the same set of facts, which has been held by the lower Court to have not been proved to accept the first ground pleaded by the respondent, has been accepted while granting the decree on the basis of the second ground, that is. desertion on the part of the appellant.

(2.) In brief the allegations made by the respondent in the petition were that just after one month of the birth of a son to her in the beginning of January, 1978 (they were married in the month of Kartik, 2033 (Bikrami) i. e. November, 1976 AD, she was turned out of the house after giving a heating. This is stated to have been done by the appellant at the instance of his brother's wife, namely, Satya, with whom he was having an affairs. Further allegations in the petition were that whatever little the appellant used to earn as a labourer, he would pass it on to Satya and not to the respondent According to her, she tried to persuade the appellant to mend his ways but in return she always got insulted, chastised and abuses. It was further pleaded that some attempts were made by the village respectables on her behalf to rehabilitate her in the house of the appellant but with no results. It was on these facts that the respondent accused the appellant of cruelty and desertion.

(3.) As has already been pointed out above, the story that the appellant had been carrying on with his sister-in-law, Satya, which essentially was to support and sustain the ground of cruelty towards the respondent has not been accepted by the lower Court. But strange as it may look, the said Court while granting the relief to the respondent on the other ground, has held as follows :