The High Court also held that the Appellant has number been able to prove cruelty.
The Single Judge of the High Court, however, held that the Respondent had deserted the Appellant without sufficient cause and granted divorce on that ground.
She claims that she was always and even number is ready to stay with the Appellant.
The Respondent filed L. P. A. No.593 of 2000 against the Order granting divorce on the ground of desertion.
The Appellant and the Respondent were married on 18th November, 1981.
Both these L. P. As.
The Respondent claims that she was driven out of the matrimonial home.
Heard parties.
Thus, the Order of the First Appellate Court has been set aside and the Petition has been dismissed.
On a question from Court, companynsel for the Appellant states that the Appellant is number willing to take back the Respondent.
The Appellant claims that the Respondent left the matrimonial home on 28th January, 1987.
have been disposed of by the impugned Judgment.
On 27th April, 1991, the Appellant filed a Divorce Petition on grounds of cruelty and desertion.
The Appellant filed L. P. No.82 of 2001 against that portion of the Order, wherein it has been held that cruelty was number proved.
The Appellant filed an Appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Delhi High Court.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows.
Arising out of S.L.P. C Nos.1948 1949 of 2003 N. VARIAVA, J. Special leave granted.
The Trial Court, after companysidering the evidence of the parties and the material on record, held that the Respondent had number proved cruelty or desertion and thus dismissed the Petition.
By this Judgment, two Letters Patent Appeals have been disposed of.
The Respondent denies this.
These Appeals are against the Judgment dated 14th August, 2002 of the Delhi High Court.
The Division Bench has also held that the Appellant has number been able to prove cruelty.
It has held, on an appreciation of evidence and material, that there was numberdesertion by the Respondent.
