A.N.Dikshita - (1.) THE appellant Smt. Priti Swami has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20-2-1984 passed by 'the District Judge, Meerut, dismissing the appeal preferred by her against the judgment and decree dated 25-10-1983 passed by the trial court decreeing the petition with costs and dissolving the marriage of the respondent Lokesh Kumar Swami with that of the appellant Smt. Priti Swami and granting divorce with effect from the date of the decree, i e. 25-10-1983.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this second appeal are that the respondent filed a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the Act) amongst others on the main allegation of cruelty and desertion by the appellant wife. THE petition was resisted by the appellant. Both the sides led evidence and on the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed the following issues :- 1- Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty ? 2- Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner without reasonable cause ? 3- To what relief, if any, is the petitioner entitled The trial court recorded a finding on issue no. 2 that the appellant had deserted the respondent without reasonable cause. However, on issue no. 1 the trial court found that the respondent had failed to prove cruelty. In view of the finding on issue no. 2 the trial court held that the appellant had deserted the respondent without any reasonable excuse for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the date of the presentation of the petition and hence granted a decree of divorce on this ground alone as provided under section 13 (b) of the Act. The marriage was thus dissolved and divorce was granted from the date of the decree. Feeling aggrieved an appeal was preferred by the appellant to the court of District Judge, Meerut, who after scanning the evidence affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Hence this Second Appeal to this Court.
(3.) BEFORE counsel for the parties could be heard on merits, Sri K. R. Sirohi, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court did not try to effect reconciliation between the parties as contemplated by Section 23 (2) of the Act. It was, however, admitted that the lower appellate court had tried to bring about reconciliation but it being of no avail the appeal was ultimately heard and dismissed on merits. At the instance of the learned counsel for the appellant and in view of the agreement to this suggestion by Sri N. C. Rajvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent, an effort was made at this stage as well to bring about a reconciliation between the parties. It, however, failed and the appeal was heard on merits. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.;