I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) (Oral) The parties to this appeal against a decree of divorce were married on Nov. 26, 1973. Out of this wedlock, two sons were born on Jan. 17, 1975 and July 23, 1977. The solitary ground pleaded for this decree was that the appellant had deserted the respondent. While granting the relief indicated above, the trial Court, that is, the District Judge, Patiala, has recorded the following conclusion : "The fact remains that inasmuch as the wife is not prepared to leave her job to join the matrimonial home of her husband Karam Chand, it has to he held that the respondent has deserted the petitioner. I decide this issue in the affirmative." In the light of this finding, applying the ratio of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Kailash Wati Vs. Ayodhia Parkash, 1977 P.L.R. 216 the Court granted the decree.
(2.) Strange as it may seem, the above noted conclusion of the District Judge is not based on any evidence on record. Not only that, this has not even been pleaded by the respondent-petitioner that the appellant had refused to join him after resigning her job. Thus I am constrained to hold that the above noted conclusion is totally baseless and there is no question of applying the ratio of the judgment noted above to the facts of this case.
(3.) All that the respondent had pleaded in his application under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act was that right from the day of marriage the appellant had been pursuing and pressurising' the respondent to come and settle at Patiala where she was employed as a Clerk in the Irrigation Department and was residing with her parents. It is not a matter of dispute that both the parties even at the time of marriage were in service, the respondent being an employee of the Veterinary Department of the State of Haryana.;