HARBANS SINGH Vs. CHANDRA PRABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful husband, against the judgment and decree, of District Judge Banswara, dt. 19-1-91 dismissing the appellant's petition for dissolution of marriage.

(2.) Facts of the case are that the parties belong to Hindu religion and were married according to Hindu rites on 7-2-1981. Out of the wedlock one son is born. The case of the husband is that on 21-8-83 the respondent went along with her father, under the pretext of celebrating Rakhi, with an assurance to return within a month, and since then has not returned to the matrimonial home. According to the appellant he wrote many letters, himself went to fetch her, sent his brother Bharat Singh, father Gulab Singh, and one Manohar Singh 2-3 times to fetch her, but all in vain. Thus according to the appellant the respondent has deserted the matrimonial home without any justifiable cause, and she is not discharging her conjugal obligations. It was also contended that, the wife submitted application for maintenance in the Ahmedabad Court, wherein maintenance has been awarded, and in that application it was pleaded by the wife that she does want to go to matrimonial home. It was also pleaded that the appellant had obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights on 19-1-85, and in compliance of that decree also the wife has not returned to matrimonial home. Thus, the appellant claimed to have become entitled to a decree for dissolution of marriage.

(3.) The application was contested by the respondent on various grounds. It was contended that she had gone to her parent's house on the festival of Rakshabandhan with consent of the parties, as she was Willingly sent. In other words, she did not go under any pretext. It was denied that the appellant wrote any letters asking her to return. The allegation about various persons including the appellant having gone to fetch her was also denied. The knowledge of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was denied, and it was also pleaded that even if the husband has obtained any decree, he never made any effort to get the decree executed. The wife pleaded that she always was, and is ready and willing to return to the matrimonial home. According to the respondent, it was soon after the marriage that the appellant and his family members started misbehaving, inasmuch as the appellant used of hurt abuses after consuming alcohol, the respondent being pure vegetarian while the appellant and his family members non-vegetarians, and they were insisting upon the respondent to cook non-vegetarian food, which she does not know, and on that count the appellant got annoyed, and on one occasion he had thrown a burning stick on her. It was also alleged that she used to be taunted on the ground of dowry. It was also alleged that the respondent's father wrote number of letters to the appellant and his father requesting them to take her away but they were not responded. Likewise the respondent's father had also come to Banswara, with the purpose to rehabilitate the matrimonial home, and collected respectable persons from their community, but the appellant or his father did not turn up. Not only this, the respondent moved an application before their community Association at Ahemdabad, who also called the appellant, but he did not turn up. Regarding maintenance it was pleaded that despite decree having been passed by Ahmedabad Court, the appellant did not pay the amount willingly, unless it is put in execution. The respondent also contended that she has not deserted the matrimonial home, rather notwithstanding the cruel treatment being meted out to her, and despite all efforts being made on her part, the appellant is not inclined to keep her with him, and thus it cannot be said that she has deserted the matrimonial home. All other allegations were also denied.