SHARDA Vs. NATHMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal under section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Act No XXV of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the wife, who was non-petitioner before the District Judge, Bikaner questions the correctness of the decree passed by the District Judge on Nov. 13, 1980 for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce. The husband-respondent was the petitioner. Hereinafter the non-petitioner-appellant and petitioner-respondent will be referred to as the wife and husband respectively. The husband filed a petition under section 13 of the Act for dissolution of the Marriage by a decree of divorce on Aug. 1, 1979 against the wife. It was averred in the petition that the marriage between the p fies was performed ten years prior to the date of the filing of the petition according to Hindu rites and thereafter, the parties lived together as husband and wife. Out of this wedlock, a son Raju by name was born seven years before, who lives with the wife. It was alleged in para 3 of the petition that the wife is doing service as a nurse against his (husband's) wishes and after the birth of the son, has left him without any just or reasonable cause it was also stated that despite several requests, the wife is not ready and willing to live with the husband for the last 6 or 7 years and has been denying the marital obligations. It is stated that on June 8, 1979, the husband went to the wife and told her to live with him but she refused. The husband has, therefore, filed the petition for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. The wife resisted the petition by filing a reply denying the allegations made by the husband. It was pleaded by the wife that as the husband beat her and did not maintain her, she was compelled to join service. The learned District Judge made efforts for re-conciliation between the parties on Feb. 7, 1980. In the Judge's note dated Feb. 7, 1980, it has been stated as under :

(2.) Feeling dissatisfied, the wife has come up in appeal to this Court as aforesaid.

(3.) I have heard Mr. C. D. Mundra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.L. Jangid, learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the record.