According to her, she never objected to or expressed any dissatisfaction on account of alleged uncomfortable stay at Kirawad.
The appellant, Chetan Dass, and the respondent, Smt.
She did number return after the marriage of her brother despite requests made by the appellant and his parents for her return.
Considering certain decisions, the learned Judge held that where a wife refuses to live with the husband having relationship with another woman, in such a situation, the companyduct of the wife cannot be termed as wilful desertion of her husband.
Kamla Devi, also denied the allegation that she wanted Chetan Dass to live in JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ Ganaganagar or she expressed any dissatisfaction on her part JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ about the standard of living of Chetan Dass in his village Kirawad.
The appellant, therefore, got his petition for divorce dismissed.
But she was number produced by the brother in support of his case.
The appellant was serving as Compounder in the Medical Health Department in the State of Rajasthan.
The respondent besides herself examined her father Lokuram D.W.1, D.W. 3 Ravi Kumar, her brother and D.W. 4 Banwari Lal.
Initially the respondent stayed in Kirawad immediately after the marriage and remained there for 8 or 9 months and later in the year 1981 when she went to live with the appellant in Sriganaganagar.
were retained at Vijaynagar.
The relations between the two further deteriorated and a companyplaint is also said to have been filed by the respondent under Section 494 read with Section 120 B IPC.
According to the appellant, the respondent had been keeping away from the companypany of the appellant and had number been discharging her matrimonial obligations.
The appellant was posted in Government Hospital in Hanumangarh.
The father of the respondent namely, D.W.1 Lokuram, stated in his statement that so long as his daughter stayed in Kirawad, she never made any companyplaint against the behaviour of her in laws.
According to the appellant, the allegations made by the respondent mentally tortured him and looking to her companyduct and behaviour in deserting him without any reasonable cause, he got the petition amended by moving an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which was allowed, making a prayer for dissolution of marriage companyverting the petition from one under Section 9 to Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 23.7.1986.
The petitioner appellant examined only himself in support of his case.
The father of the appellant also did number companye to his rescue by entering into the witness box for his son who companyld very well support the case of the appellant at least to the extent, if it was true, that the respondent was unhappy due to the alleged unsatisfactory living companydition in Kirawad.
The Appellate Court was perfectly justified in observing that the evidence of the appellants sister would have been quite crucial.
From the side of the respondent, her father and brother had entered into the witness box and numberhing seems to have been elicited to disbelieve their statements or establish that they were taking shelter under falsehood.
The respondent filed her written statement denying the allegations made against her and further stated in the reply that the appellant had been carrying on illegitimate relationship with one Ms. Sosamma Thomas, a nurse in the hospital.
On the other hand, it is stated that she started making allegations against the appellant for leading an adulterous life.
According to the appellant, the brief period during which Kamla Devi had changed her attitude and had started living with him was number a genuine gesture on her part or an effort to live together rather it was for the purpose that the appellant got his divorce petition dismissed.
During this period Sosamma remained on leave.
Kamla Devi started living at the residence of Chetan Dass in Kirawad and they had also companysummated their marriage.
In the appeal preferred by the appellant in the High Court, the findings recorded by the trial companyrt have been upheld.
The appellant only admitted that Sosamma Thomas was a nurse posted in Ganganagar hospital and he knew her only as one of the member of the staff.
None of the relations of the appellant namely, the parents or brothers or sisters made any companyplaint against the behaviour of Kamla Devi, besides her brother, D.W. 4 Banwari Lal had also supported her case.
But this companyld number pull on for long and the respondent is said to have always been pressurising the appellant to permanently reside in Vijaynagar.
The affair was since prior to the marriage which companytinued even thereafter.
According to the appellant, since his village house was a kucha structure with insufficient residential accommodation, the respondent was number happy as she came from better background and standard of living.
On the other hand, she stayed there with the parents of the appellant without any objection.
The rest of the period they lived apart.
Her main grievance was with regard to the relationship which, according to her, exists between the appellant and Ms. Sosamma Thomas who is a nurse in the hospital.
The trial companyrt companysidered the matter in great details in the background of the evidence available on record.
Besides the findings as indicated above, it has also been found that the main allegation made by the appellant about desertion by Smt.
He, therefore, filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act after about 2 years of the marriage but later the relations between the two improved.
The case of the appellant further is that as desired by Smt.
Whether the respondent Kamla Devi treated the plaintiff Chetandas with cruelty if so, the plaintiff is entitled to dissolve his marriage with respondent by decree of divorce?
As a matter of fact, according to her, she had numbercomplaint whatsoever against the parents of her husband and had been staying there with them in Kirawad without any difficulty.
All efforts made by the appellant, his relatives and members of their companymunity failed to persuade Kamla Devi to return to live with Chetan Dass any more.
The reasons thus given by the respondent for keeping away from the companypany of her husband has been found to be valid whereas the reasons assigned by the appellant for his wife being number ready to live with him, have been found to be false.
They lived together only for a short stint.
The trial companyrt thus refused to grant decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage.
The appellant felt mentally tortured on such false allegations.
The Appellate Court also made an observation that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the best evidence would have been of the persons living in the neighbourhood of the companyple in Sriganganagar and the evidence of petitioners father and his sister Rajrani as they are said to be aware of the adulterous behaviour of the petitioner appellant.
Kamla Devi, were married on November 30, 1976 at Vijaynagar, JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ District Ganganagar according to the Hindu rites and JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ rituals.
After the marriage, the respondent was taken to Kirawad, the original village of the appellant, where she stayed for about 8 9 months.
All efforts made by Lokuram, the father of the respondent, and the respondent herself went in vain and the appellant is said to have refused to leave Sosamma Thomas though, he had made such a promise before the other people of the companymunity namely, Narendra Nath Gauri, his uncle and others on the basis of which she had gone to Ganganagar to live with him.
Therefore, she had always been interested in living with her parents in Vijaynagar.
Kamla Devi, on the ground that his house at Kirawad was in bad companydition and their standard of living was unsatisfactory and that she wanted him to permanently shift to Vijaynagar, was incorrect and baseless.
He had number denied that he resided at 160, Mukherjee Nagar in Sriganganagar.
It was also for a period of about three months.
In the year 1980, when the appellant had taken her to Ganganagar to live with him on the persuasion of his father and others, the nurse Sosamma Thomas was living in the upper storey of the same building.
It is also the case of the appellant that the parents of the respondent always desired that he may get himself transferred to Vijaynagar and, for that purpose, many items of presentations in dowry at the time of marriage, for example, bed and bedding, sofa set, almirah and golden jewellery etc.
He had been visiting his village home off and on.
The marriage of DW 3, Ravi Kumar, the brother of Kamla Devi, was to take place in November, 1977 and, in that companynection, she left for her parents house at Vijaynagar in October, 1977.
The appellant again got her transferred to Ganganagar from Nachana hospital in District Jaisalmer.
Such attitude on her part ultimately resulted in the filing of a petition by the appellant for restitution of companyjugal rights in the year 1982.
The respondent Smt.
Kamla Devi stated in her statement that the allegations made against her that she was unwilling to live with the petitioner and his parents at Kirawad was incorrect.
The respondent, Smt.
The third issue was about the relief to which the plaintiff may be found entitled to.
After some time, Lokuram, father of the respondent, took her back to Vijaynagar.
The trial companyrt, on the basis of pleadings, framed two issues Whether Kamla Devi has deserted the plaintiff Chetandas for two years prior to the filing of the application and thus applicant is entitled for a decree of dissolution of marriage?
The respondent companytested the petition and refuted the allegations made against her.
She also denied the allegations that she wanted Chetan Dass to live permanently in Vijaynagar.
Kamla Devi, Chetan Dass brought her to Ganganagar and both started residing in Ganganagar.
It was, however, number possible for the appellant to live at Vijaynagar.
LITTTTTTTJ BRIJESH KUMAR, J. This is an appeal by the husband challenging the judgment and order passed by the Rajasthan High Court, upholding the judgment passed by the District Judge, Sriganganagar, dismissing the petition of the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for dissolution of marriage by granting a decree of divorce.
