RAMESH KUMAR Vs. BADAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a husband's appeal against the order of the learned District Judge, Bhilwara, dated March 15, 1982, dismissing his application for grant of divorce under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to this appeal are that Shri Ramesh Kumar filed an application before the learned District Judge, Bhilwara against his wife Smt. Badami alleging that the marriage of the parties took place according to the Hindu rites about 8 years back. However, since then the parties have not been living together amicably and in a matrimony except that about 3 years back the non-petitioner Smt. Badami came and stayed with the petitioner for two-three days. But during those two three days also there was no consummation of the marriage and Smt. Badami did not carry out her duties as a wife. It was further alleged that Smt. Badami has deserted the petitioner for more than three years past, that she had been living in adultery with other persons and that she had been treating the petitioner and his parents with cruelty, therefore, it was not possible for the petitioner to continue the matrimony with the non- petitioner and therefore, he prayed for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion, adultery and cruelty. The non-petitioner Smt. Badami denied all these allegations except that she admitted that she was married to the petitioner. Her case was that she had been living with the petitioner for the last more than 10 years and had been rendering her marritable duties. It was the petitioner who did not want to live with her as she was illiterate and the petitioner had been telling her that he would like to marry another girl who may be literate. She had asked for particulars of the persons with whom the petitioner thinks she was living in adultery. The petitioner however, could not furnish any of those details and could not name any person with whom the non-petitioner had adulterous relations. Aft framing the necessary issues and taking the evidence of the parties the learned District Judge found that none of the above three grounds had been established by the petitioner. He accordingly rejected his application The petitioner has, therefore, now come tip in appeal.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The respondent has not cared to appear despite service.