SUDARSHAN SINGH Vs. SMT. KULDIP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is sequel of the matrimonial rupture between the parties and atone in these circumstances:

(2.) THE Respondent contested the petition moved by the Appellant. She admitted the factum of marriage as well as the birth of two children from her to the Appellant. She controverter the other material allegations made by the Appellant, and pleaded that he (the Appellant) and his mother had been maltreating and taunting her for not bringing adequate dowry and she had been subjected to violence a number of times and had been ultimately, turned out of the house by the Appellant on June 12, 1959, that she had given tooth -bite on the chest of the Appellant to save herself from his clutches when he was bodily lifting her with a view to throw her down from the roof of the house. Hence, the petition was tried on the following issues:

(3.) THE facts that the parties were married at Amritsar on November 17/18, 1956 and then after they had lived as husband and wife and a son and a daughter were born to them, the daughter had died and the son is alive, that on account of soma estrangement the Respondent left the house of the Appellant on June 12, 1959 and resided with her parents till June 21, 1960 when on the intervention of the respectable and relations she returned to his house and lived there till December 31, 1964 when she again left his house and there her joined the librarian Course at Chandigarh and secured employment as Librarian, firstly at Banng College, Batala and then in the Modern College for Women at Amritsar and she had also given tooth -bite on the chest of the Appellant on December 30, 1964 ; and that she had not so far returned to the house of the Appellant, are admitted. In support of appeal, Mr. H.S. Wasu, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, assailed the findings recorded by the trial Court and argued that both the grounds viz., desertion and cruelty on the part of the Respondent were fully proved by the evidence and circumstances of the case. On the contrary, Mr. Tirath Singh Munjral, Learned Counsel for the Respondent, supported the judgment of the trial Court with the contentions that the findings had been correctly recorded by it on both the aforesaid issues, i.e. Nos. 1 and 2, and accused the Appellant of constructive desertion I see merit in the arguments advanced by Mr. Wasu, in my opinion, the contentions raised by Mr. Munjral, are not well -founded, so far as the ground of desertion is concerned.