K.KANNAN, J. - (1.) AN application for divorce by the husband on the ground of desertion was allowed. The appellant is the wife, who is aggrieved with the decision.
(2.) THE parties were Hindus and their marriage took place on 27.03.1991 at Naushehra Mazza Singh according to Sikh rites. They started living as husband and wife and the contention of the husband was that even within a few days after marriage, he found the wife to be indifferent to his ill-health and needs and after continual bickerings, the wife left the matrimonial home in June 1995 never to return to his company. The wife was guilty of desertion and there had been no resumption of cohabitation till the petition was filed in 2000. The wife responded to these allegations by stating that she had never deserted him, but it was the husband, who was guilty of visiting her with physical assault and cruelty. He and his parents were at all times complaining that she had not brought enough dowry. Personal slur on her looks were hurled against her and they stated that she looks like a house-maid and was not a suitable partner for the husband. She insisted that she continued to live with her husband and the marriage itself had been celebrated on a grand scale and she was turned out of the house only on account of greed for more dowry and money and the inability of the wife's parents to cope with the demands of the husband. At the time of trial, the case took slightly a different focus. 3A. In an attempt to state that the husband or his family were never in greed for more dowry or money, it was contended that they were devotees of Sant Harsharan Singh and the wife's father was also an ardent devotee and the marriage took place only by the acceptance of the proposal made by Sant Harsharan Singh. The petitioner gave evidence to the effect that the marriage party was just a small number of 15 to 20 persons and after marriage at Naushehra Mazza Singh, the parties went to a gurdwara and took langar. The petitioner's contention was that the respondent's father came to Chandigarh in July 1991 and took the wife to Naushehra Mazza Singh and she stayed back and when the petitioner had went to fetch her, he was insulted and sent back. Between July 1991 to June 1995, there had been no communication at all between the parties and the intervention of the uncle namely Bhagwant Singh, the parties again starting living together at Chandigarh, but she left the house on 30.06.1995 never to return again.
(3.) THE respondent denied that there had been a separation from the year 1995 and she wanted to contend that she had stayed with him till the year 2000 and at the trial, therefore, the attempt by the petitioner was to elicit information of the various events that had taken place at the residence of the petitioner between 1995 to 2000. The Trial Court found that many of the incidents, which she ought to have known, if she had stayed with him and, therefore, her contention that she was staying with him could not be true. To wit, admittedly the husband had constructed a new house in the year 1997 at House No.536 in Sector 33, Chandigarh. The husband gave evidence to the effect that he was living in new house after 1997 but the wife admitted that she had never lived in new house. She was asked about the telephone number at the new house which she did not know. She was also asked about the owner of the house, where they were previously living, about whom also she did not know. She expressed her ignorance about the incident of death of the wife of the landlord which she ought to have known if she was living with the husband at the said house. As the 4th incident, in a complaint which the wife gave against her husband under Section 498-A IPC, she had given only the address of the petitioner at Sector 34 and had not given the address of the petitioner at the new house where he said that he moved in the year 1997. In the latter part of the evidence, she stated that she was living with her husband in Sector 33, but she was unable to remember the name of the famous garden situated in Sector 33. She did not also remember when the mother of the petitioner met with an accident and also admitted that she did not visit to see her mother-in-law when she had been injured between the period 1995 to 2000. She did not know the death of the maternal uncle of the petitioner in the year 1999 at Bangkok. She did not also know the names of neighbours of the petitioner.;