JAGJET KUMAR Vs. SMT. VINOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Jagjeet Kumar had filed an application under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming a decree of divorce against his wife, Smt Vinood before the learned District Judge Bikaner. His case was that the marriage of the parties had taken place according to the Hindu rites and custom on Nov. 28 1968 at Mujafarnagar and thereafter the couple resided together at Bikaner till 1975. The case of the petitioner further was that in 1975 Smt. Vinood withdraw from the society of the petitioner without any reasonable cause and had not returned to him for more than 2 years and had thus deserted him. He also alleged that she had taken away valuable worth about Rs. 20,000 when she left the petitioner's place. He alleged that he made efforts to call her back through his relations but not only those efforts failed but the non-petitioner made false accusation of the petitioner being a drunked addicted to gambling and prostitution. According to the petitioner these false allegations by the wife against the husband amounted to cruelty and, therefore, he wanted a divorce his wife on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The application was presented on May 4, 1982. The non-petitioner wife contested the application and denied the allegation of desertion and cruelty. On the other hand she pleaded that it was the petitioner who had himself deserted her and had treated cruelty when she resided with him. He used to drink and under the influence of alcohol beat her. She also alleged that he had the had habits of gambling and his character also doubtful. After framing the necessary issued and taking the evidence of the parties the learned District Judge found that the petitioner had failed to establish both the grounds on which he sought divorce from his wife. He accordingly dismissed the application. The petitioner has therefore now come up in appeal.

(2.) By order dated April. 18, 1983 the parties were directed to be present in Court on May 9, 1983 so that possibility of reconciliation could be explored. However on that day that Respondent could not come and the learned counsel for the Respondent wanted some time to call her, but the appellant objected to it and clearly stated that them was absolutely no possibility of any reconciliation and that he was not prepared to take the respondent back with him. In these circumstances the matter was kept for hearing.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Now so far as the findings of the learned District Judge that the petitioner had failed to establish either desertion or cruelty on the part of the non-petitioner so the learned counsel for the appellant has candidly not challenged them in any seriousness. He has mainly raised two contentions before me. His first contention is that even in the reply to the application under section 13 as well as in her statement before the Court the non-petitioner respondent has levelled serious allegations against the appellant accusing him of gambling, drinking and prostitution and, therefore, such allegations by themselves must be deemed to be amounting to cruelty on the part of the wife and on that basis alone the appellant should have been granted a decree of divorce. His second contention is that from the circumstances brought on record by both the parties it is beyond doubt that the parties cannot live together and the matrimonial relations have broken beyond repair and in these circumstances the divorce is the only remedy to restore happiness to the parties and, therefore, a decree of divorce should have been granted to the appellant.