J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) This appeal filed on behalf of husband Bhagat Ram arose out of a petition under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of Marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. The petition under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge as he came to the conclusion that the husband failed to prove the desertion as alleged by him.
(2.) The marriage between the parties took place on 18th May, 1974. Out of this wedlock a son was born on 14th March, 1975 at Ajnala in the house of the wife's father. The petition for divorce was filed on 4th April, 1979 on the allegations that the respondent -wife deserted the appellant for more than two years and left him in July, 1976 and thereafter she did not come back to him inspite of his efforts to bring her back. She was stated to be a lady of aggressive nature and that she used to abuse and deal with filthy language with her husband and his parents and that she even did not make herself available to the husband for co -habitation for a long period which affected him physically and mentally as well and as such committed cruelty upon him. These allegations were denied by the wife -respondent in her written statement. She pleaded that the husband had turned her out of his house in November, 1978 and till then she has been living at his house and performing all the marital duties and that neither she deserted nor committed cruelty upon him. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed: - 1. Whether the respondent deserted the petitioner for continuous period of more than two years before filing of the petition and treated her with cruelty and as such the petitioner is entitled to the decree by divorce? 2. Relief. The learned Additional District Judge discussed the whole evidence on the record, particularly the statements of the parties, and came to the following conclusions: - (i) That the version of the husband -petitioner that she left him in July, 1976 was not correct because from the evidence it is quite clear that the minor son who was born in 1973 had remained at the house of the petitioner -husband till June, 1978. The story of the husband that the child was left by the mother at their house and therefore, he remained with them for about two years, while thereafter he had been rent to his mother as he had become weak due to illness, was not correct. (ii) That she had shown her readiness to live with the husband as his wife without any condition but on the other hand the husband -petitioner stated that he is not ready to keep her and his father also stated the same which obviously shows that the fault lies with them.
(3.) The learned counsel for the husband -appellant vehemently contended that the evidence of the wife -respondent could not be believed, as she never pleaded these facts in her written statement. According to the learned counsel the desertion on the part of the wife is amply proved on the record.;