OM PRAKASH Vs. ROSHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE of the evils of an early marriage is well highlighted by the facts of this case.

(2.) THE parties to the litigation were married at a very tender age in the year 1956. They started living as husband and wife about seven years thereafter and a girl was born to them in the year 1965 when the appellant husband was still an under-graduate and was studying at Jind. This child, however, died by the time she reached the age of ten / eleven years.

(3.) AFTER passing the B. A. Examination, the appellant joined service as an Auditor in the office of the Accountant General at Simla and so continued there till the year 1971. As per his stand in the petition for divorce, the respondent wife had left his house in December, 1965. He claims to have continued his efforts to bring her back till the year 1971 when he learnt that she had given birth to an illegitimate male child. This was enough to put a complete stop to all conciliatory efforts on his part. He, however, filed the present petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short, the Act) in the year 1979 for a decree of divorce on the grounds of desertion and adultery. Though he initially succeeded in the trial Court on both the grounds, yet the learned single Judge has reversed the findings of the trial Court after a minute scrutiny of the evidence on record. The appellant in this letters patent appeal seeks to persuade us to disagree with the conclusions of the learned single Judge on a reappraisal of the evidence. Though we are satisfied that that hardly is the scope of a letters patent appeal, yet we have scanned the evidence with the help of the learned counsel for the appellant, but do not feel persuaded to disagree with the learned single Judge in any manner.