SURESH CHAND Vs. SAROJ RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point urged in this appeal, which arises out of the matrimonial disruption, is that the learned trial court did not consider the whole evidence produced by the appellant husband. The parties were married in the year 1972, but they separated after about one month. A son was born out of the wedlock in July, 1974. The present appellant filed a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) for dissolution of marriage on the ground that the respondent had deserted him, which was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated May 24, 1978. The order of the trial court shows that the appellant produced only two witnesses, namely, the appellant himself as A. W. 1 and Ranbir Lal as A. W. 2, but in fact he had produced three witnesses, viz., A. W. I the appellant himself A. W. 2. Ranbir Lal and A. W. 3 Ram Sarup, his father. The plea taken by the respondent in her written statement was that since her father-in-law had an evil eye on her, she began living separately from the appellant and that she was prepared to live with her husband if he lived separately from his father. The learned trial court did not at all taken into consideration the evidence of A. W. 3 Ram Sarup, the appellant's father. It is an elementary principle of law that the evidence produced by the parties is to be taken into consideration for arriving at a correct decision. In the present case the evidence of the appellant's father has been ignored by the trial court, altogether.

(2.) Accordingly this appeal is allowed, the order of the trial Court is set aside and the trial court is directed to decide the matter afresh taking into consideration the entire evidence produced by the husband and wife. There will be no order as costs.