- (1.) - This is the defendant's (wife's) Second Appeal in a petition for a decree of divorce filed by the plaintiff, the husband-respondent. The plaintiff respondent filed petition under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (for short the Act), on the allegations that the marriage of plaintiff respondent with the appellant was solemnized on 24-2-1978 at Mainpuri in accordance with the relevant ceremonies of the Hindu religion. After marriage the appellant wife resided with her husband for about 15 months at Agra and thereafter without any sufficient cause she withdrew from the company of her husband on 28-7-79 and she deserted the respondent for more than two years. She has been suffering from mental disorder and he could not be expected to live with her. This fact was admitted by the wife in her letters. This all was done by her to bring the marital relation to an end. It was to such an extent that it was never resumed. Her behaviour was harsh and insulting. She misbehaved with her in-laws and has apathy to discharge marital obligations and prevented him the plaintiff to have such relations. The marriage even could not be consummated in spite of efforts by the husband. She expressed willingness to renounce the world and lead life of a nun. She used to say that she was forced to marry against her wishes. Even the husband was insulted and she refused to do the household works. She made false complaints to the administratively superior officers of the respondent. She has been in a mental hospital. All these allegations constitute cruelty and in substance, grounds mentioned in S. 13(1) (i)(a) and (iii) of the Act has been made out.
(2.) The appellant wife contested the petition denying the allegations and she alleged that it is wrong to state that she lived with respondent only for 15 months at Agra, rather she lived with the plaintiff respondent up to July 1981. She has never withdrew from the company of her husband, the respondent and she never suffered from mental disorder nor she has deserted the respondent. She has been a good serviceable wife and has been discharging her marital obligations and she never committed any act which could constitute 'cruelty', within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a), nor the grounds under S. 13(1)(iii) was made out, rather the respondent husband refused to maintain her and treat her as his wife and she has never been under the treatment of the alleged Dr. Yadav of Mental Hospital as alleged by the husband respondent. In fact he wanted to get rid of her so that he might contract another marriage. She has never written letters alleged by him and it was not the spirit or meaning of the letter as stated in the petition for divorce. She does not want to live separately nor has any such willingness. She has been discharging her marital obligations and is willing and ready to perform the same. She has never caused any mental or physical cruelty, nor she wanted to renounce the world or to lead the life of a nun. She never stated to be married against her wishes. The petition for divorce was filed on totally incorrect allegations and deserve to be dismissed.
(3.) The trial Court decreed the petition for divorce holding that the allegations of 'cruelty' as envisaged under S. 13(1)(i-a) of the Act was proved, but about the ground that she has been incurably of unsound mind, it was found in negative against the respondent. The appellant preferred appeal before the lower appellate Court, which was substantially dismissed holding that 'the cruelty', was proved, whereas desertion for a continuous period of two years immediately preceding the presentation of petition as envisaged by S. 13(1)(i-b) was not proved.;