DAYA WANTI Vs. VED PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record, I am of the view that there is no scope for interference in this appeal.

(2.) The wife's own case is that she was married in 1966 and the Muklava ceremony took place in 1974 and that she lived with her husband till June. 1982. She filed a petition for divorce in November, 1984 on the plea that her husband was a dead drunkard and wanted her to make her body available to other persons to earn money and since she was a respectable lady, she did not agree with the result he started beating her. The husband denied the wife's allegations and pleaded that after she got into service as a Sales Representative at Karnal Central Co-operative Store, she started mixing with the employees of the department and thereafter with strangers of bad character and had illicit relations with them. The wife did not file replication to claim additional ground of divorce on the basis of the pleas raised by the husband. On the evidence led in the case, the trial Court believed the statement of the husband and that of the wife's father and came to the conclusion that it was the wife who was guilty and not the husband. As a result, the divorce petition was dismissed. This is wife's appeal.

(3.) As already noticed, according to the statement made by the wife in court as P.W.1, from 1074 till 1982 the parties lived together as husband and wife. The only statement made by the wife against her husband is in the following terms :-