SUDESH SONI Vs. SURINDER LAL SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present appeal,' Mrs. Sudesh Soni, appellant, has challenged the decree of divorce passed on August 21, 1978, by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) on the petition of her husband, the respondent.

(2.) Both the parties are educated and were in service at the time of the marriage on November 22, 1972. The respondent was employed as a Clerk in the Electricity Department at Chandigarh whereas the appellant was working as a school teachress at Pehowa. After the solemnization of the marriage, they lived amicably as husband and wife up to May 15, 1973 As the appellant was employed at Pehowa, the residence of her parents, she used to go to her husband at Chandigarh from time to time. According to the allegation of the respondent in the petition, the appellant went to Pehowa to resume her duties in the school on May 16, 1973. As the school was to close for summer vacation with effect from May 20, 1973, it had been decided that the appellant would win her husband on May 20, 1973, but the respondent received a letter, Exhibit P. 3, May 18, 1973, from the appellant according to which, she expressed her helplessness to come on account of displeasure of her brother, Ved Parkash, against the respondent. The respondent filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Act of July 26, 1973, which culminated in a compromise between the parties on January 21, 1974, in pursuance of which, both the parties began to live together again According to the further averments in paragraph 23 of the petition, on April 10, 1974, Ved Parkash, her brother, and two of his other relations and their children, met the appellant at the house of the respondent's sister at Delhi. According to the respondent the appellant was perfectly happy on that day. However, on May 1, 1974, when the respondent was away on duty, the appellant was removed in a taxi from his house at Chandigarh by her brother, Ved Parkash, and her brother-in-law Parshotam Lal Dhawan, police force was also accompanying them. She had been taken from his house in pursuance of a warrant issued by the Magistrate under section 7, Code of Criminal Procedure. After appearance in the Court, and making a statement, she did not go back to the respondent. The case of the respondent in the Petition was that since May 1, 1974 the appellant had deserted the petitioner. Nine days after, that is, on May 10, 1974, the respondent filed a second petition under section 9 of the Act, for restitution of conjugal rights. The proceedings in the same remained pending tilt November 25, 1976, when the some was withdrawn with the permission of the Court as he wanted to file a petition for divorce on account of amendment in the law. The present petition for divorce was filed on December 14, 1976. According to the averments of the appellant in paragraph 10 of the written statement, the respondent came to Pehowa on May 2, 1973 and gave a beating to her during the night on the pretext that she had not brought a glass of water to be kept near him during the night. She was insulted by hint in the presence of her relations, It was further averred that on May 7, 1973, the respondent's mother took her back to Chandigarh on the assurance that the respondent will treat her properly. It is not necessary, nor relevant to advert to the further averments regarding the relations between the parties before January 21, 1974, as compromise had been effected between them in the petition under section 9 of the Act, filed by respondent on that day. It is the common case of the parties, that they lived together from time to time till April 30, 1974. It was admitted that she was taken from the house of the respondent by her brother and others in pursuance of a search warrant issued by the Magistrate on May 1, 1974. According to the appellant, it was the respondent, in fact, who had maltreated her and deserted her.

(3.) The respondent has sought decree of divorce on the allegation that on May 1, 1974. the appellant left his society and never came back. There is no averment whatsoever in the pleadings, nor is there any evidence adduced, that after May 1, 1974, any step was taken by the respondent to bring her back.