VIRO Vs. AJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Viro alias Vir Kaur has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated December 20, 1977, passed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, dismissing her petition against her husband Ajit Singh for the dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The only point for determination is whether the respondent had in fact deserted the appellant for a period of two years prior to May, 1977, when the institution of the petition took place.

(2.) The parties got married on June 30, 1971, and then resided together at Patti but no child was born to them. The appellant set up this case that the respondent had continued to treat her with cruelty and used to give beatings to her. It was further alleged that the maltreatment on the part of the respondent continued because she had not brought dowry to the expected extent. The appellant further mentioned that the respondent never did any work and that whenever she asked him to earn something he used to take offended and in that manner made her life miserable. Then for alleging a specific date for desertion it was pleaded by the appellant that two days prior to the festival of Baisakhi of the year 1975 he told her that he was not prepared to keep her as his wife. The respondent's father is a Constable and this kind of allegation was made by the appellant that the respondent threatened her that he would get her involved in some case of theft. The respondent, on the other hand, put the whole blame on the appellant in the written statement filed by him. According to him somewhere in the year 1975 he fell ill and for that reason the appellant left his house. Subsequently as a result of the illness, he became hard of hearing. According to him, it was. the appellant who had deserted him. He showed his willingness to keep the appellant in his house.

(3.) The appellant gave her own evidence as PW-3 and examined two other witnesses whose evidence is not very material. The appellant in her statement said that the respondent had gone completely deaf. She then urged in her cross-examination that he was even deaf at the time of marriage and that she had come of know about this fact later on meaning thereby that she may not have married him if she had known all about the deafness. The manner in which allegations against the respondent were made clearly shows that the appellant had formed this clear intention that she would not at all reside with the respondent. She was not in a reconciliatory attitude and for that reason tried to allege even some kind of fraud practised by the respondent for avoiding the marriage during the course of the trial of the petition. Subsequently the respondent, had filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant admitted that when a process server wanted to effect service on her on November 19, 1977, she evaded it and made out this story that she wanted to consult the lawyer engaged by her. At the end of her cross- examination she gave out that she , was not at all prepared to go back to the respondent on any terns and, therefore, did not want at all to settle the dispute, The manner in which the allegations were made against the respondent in the petition and then from what she deposed at the trial clearly bring out this fact that it is the appellant who had deserted the respondent. On an appreciation of the evidence of the learned Additional District Judge found that the respondent had not been mal-treating the appellant and that he had been making efforts to bring her back to his house. It was further held that the respondent did not form any intention to put an end to the matrimonial relations. I hardly see any reason to differ from these findings. The respondent gave this evidence as RW-4 that he was working as a belder and that when he became ill the appellant went away to her parents house by saving that she wanted to see her parents. He further deposed that after about eight days when he went to bring her back she taunted that he should first get his ears treated. Then according to the respondent he got himself medically examined at Delhi but he could not get cured. He showed his willingness to take the appellant to his house but still she did not agree to it. The respondent became deaf after the marriage and it would not he reasonable to presume that in a condition that he is in he can get a better match than the appellant even in case there is ultimately a divorce between the parties. The appellant gave her age as 22 years when she was examined by the trial Court on October 20, 1977, and thus she considered herself still as young as to find another match. Thus in the circumstances of the present case, it is held that the appellant herself having deserted her husband is not at all entitled to the relief prayed for by her. The appeal is consequently dismissed. The parties, are, however, left to bear their owe costs.