Rajeshwari Prasad J. - (1.) THIS se cond appeal has come up before us on ac count of an order of reference made by Hon. Asthana, J. when the second ap peal was listed before him for hearing.
(2.) THE second appeal arises out of pro ceedings under Section 10 of the Hindu, Marriage Act, 1955 and is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Hamirpur, which was confirmed in appeal by the District Judge, Banda. The respondent Sri Narendra Singh happened to be Yuvraj of the estate known as "Sarela Estate" and he was married to the appellant, who is the daughter of Maharaj Kumar of Alirajpur Estate. The marriage had taken place sometime in January 1945. The marital life of the party went on smoothly for about two years when it is said that the appellant left for Alirajpur in February 1947 at a time when her husband was out of station. As she went to her father's place she took away all her belongings including valuables and jewelleries received bv her either from her parents or from her father-in-law's side. In spite of repeated attempts on behalf of the respondent, she refused to come back to him and to per form her marital obligations. According to the case of the respondent, she is re ported to have said that the respondent was at liberty to remarry and that she ceased to have interest in him. On such allegations, the respondent pleaded that the appellant deserted him without rea sonable cause and without his consent early in 1947. Consequently, the respon dent was entitled to an order of judicial separation under S. 10 of the Act.
(3.) THE application was contested by the appellant on the ground inter alia that she was not treated well when she stayed at her husband's place till March 1947; she had developed serious heart trouble and her father-in-law himself had sent her for treatment to Alirajpur; she did not take away with her valuables and jewelleries as alleged by the respon dent; she had not refused to return back to Sarila but she insisted upon an as surance of better behaviour; she had never permitted the respondent to remarry; and that the petition had been filed for the purpose of putting her to harassment with a view to negative her claim against the petitioner. The purpose of the petition was to justify his conduct in having married Countess Reita in Europe.;