SAVITRI DEVI Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant wife challenges a decree for judicial separation passed against her and in favour of her Husband, the respondent.

(2.) The marriage between the parties was performed at a place named Ichhawar on 4.2-1971. After the marriage, instead of accompanying the respondent of his place, the appellant wife went back to her parents pace as she claimed to be ill. She came to the respondent's place for the first time in Aug., 1971 and stayed for about two months. Then on Oct., 20, 1971 she left the matrimonial home and has never come back.

(3.) The respondent alleged that he had been making attempts to restore union between the two. On 10-2-1972, he intimated the appellant and her father that his father was ill and wanted her to come to his house. Then on 10-4-1972, he sent a telegram to a friend of appellant's father of Shankergarh to persuade the appellant's father to send her back. Earlier on 7.4-1972, he had intimated the appellant about the death of a child of his elder brother. In Nov., 1972, intimation was sent of the death of respondent's brother-in-law Shri Joshi. Then the priest, who performed the marriage, wrote to the appellant's father to send the appellant back to the respondent. Again, the respondent's brother and his mother went to the appellant's house to bring her back. All these attempts to bring back the appellant to her matrimorial home failed. Consequently, on 15-1-1976, the respondent issued the notice (Ex. P-13) through his Advocate requesting the appellant either to come back or to put an end to the marriage for ever. The appellant sent a reply to this notice which is Ex. P/14. The respondent, there fore was constrained to file the suit in which he alleged that for no reasonable cause the appellant has withdrawn from his society and thus has deserted him. It was also alleged by him that the appellant accused him of having illicit relations with a co-worker. Not only this, it was also stated that this false accusation against him was communicated to his superior officers. A decree for judicial separation was, therefore, claimed. During the pendency of the suit, the Hindu Marriage Act was amended and, therefore, the respondent on the very allegations claimed decree for divorce.