SATISH KUMARI Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is wife's appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Una, whereby her petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 stands declined.

(2.) The admitted position is that the parties were married as back as 1973 and they have three daughters out of the wedlock, quite grown up with ages 19, 17 and 15 years respectively when the decision was made in the year 1994 and now two years to each one can further be added to their respective ages.2A. A divorce was sought on the twin ground of desertion and cruelty. It was pleaded that after the birth of the daughters, the respondent-husband started doubting her character and used to give beatings regularly. It is also stated that in this position her living with the husband became impossible. The appellant was not even matriculate at the time of her marriage and the husband too had not even passed out the middle standard examination. The appellant-wife in the interest of their married life and children, thought of improving her educational qualifications and consequently passed matriculation, Prabhakar and then L.T. from a private institute at Jallundhar, and according to her the expenses for this were made available by her father. As no job was available in the State of Himachal Pradesh, she sought employment in a school at Abohar, in the year 1989. It is her case that ever since the year 1984 she has been consistently visiting the husband but he refused to have sexual relation with her and thus had withdrawn from her society. The children are said to have been turned out in the year 1992 and ever since then they are living with their mother, that is the appellant.

(3.) In reply, the case of the respondent is that the educational expenses were borne by him and not by the father of the wife. She, of course, went to Jallundhar to improve her educational qualifications. The children all this time have been living with him and they were taken away by the wife in the year 1992. According to the husband, he has not withdrawn from the society of the petitioner nor ever, treated her with cruelty and never doubted her character nor such type of allegations were ever made by him against her.