MINA VERMA Vs. KIRIT VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the petitioner-appellantabovenamed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the -ex-partejudgment and order dated 11.11.1987 passed by the then Additional District Judge,7th Dhanbad in Title (Matrimonial) Suit No. 47 of 1985.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioner-appellant was married to therespondent according to the Hindu rites and rituals on 13.12.1971, at Dhanbad andthereafter they started conjugal life. As per the contents of the divorce petition filed,from the very date of entering into the matrimonial life, the appellant was takenaback when she found that her husband was a dead drunkard and was alwaystreating the petitioner-appellant with cruelty. He was not having any sort of loveand affection towards the petitioner but still being a Hindu wife she tried to getherself adjusted and to mend her life partner, but all her attempts proved futile. Afemale child was born in the wedlock in the year 1974 but then also tine attitude ofthe respondent-husband did not change. He was not even ready to maintain wifeand his own child. The petitioner being compelled learnt tailoring and startedearning for her maintenance and also for her female child. With tine thought of herbeing separated temporarily the respondent might have changed his attitude, sheoccasionally used to withdraw from the matrimonial home and stay at her parents'house. But on coming back also she found the situation unchanged, she becamecompletely fed up with the cruelty being meted to her by her husband and as suchin the compelling circumstances of not getting maintenance for her and her child, -she went to her father's house in the year 1985 and since then she was residing ather parents' house, till the filing of the divorce petition in the year 1985.

(3.) The divorce petition filed by the appellant was registered as Title (M) SuitNo. 47 of 1985 and on being noticed, the respondent-husband put in appearance byfiling Vakalatnama and took several adjournments for filing written statement, butultimately he did not file so. Even he did not respond to the attempt of reconciliationbetween the spouses made by the trial Judge and ultimately the case was heard ex-parte and the appellant was examined as a sole witness in support of her contention.In her evidence, she has stated what she contended in her divorce petition, but thelearned Court below after considering the evidence on record came to the findingthat neither of the grounds for divorce as enumerated under Section 13 of the HinduMarriage Act could come into play on the contents and evidence adduced by theappellant. In the impugned judgment and order the learned Court below held thatthe ground of desertion could not be proved as the petitioner had withdrawn herselffrom the matrimonial home. He has further held that the ground of cruelty couldalso not be proved as drunkardness per se cannot be said to be a ground of cruelty.