- (1.) The appellant's marriage with the respondent husband stands dissolved vide the impugned decree under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short, the Act). It has been granted on the twin ground of cruelty and desertion. Before dealing with the merits of the appeal it is but necessary to notice in somewhat detail the litigative history of the case which otherwise is not in dispute.
(2.) The appellant wife is stated to have deserted the respondent husband somewhere in September 1975 when she left his house and has not returned to him since then. This made the respondent file a petition under section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights in 1978. In reply to that petition one of the pleas raised by the appellant was to the following effect :- "In fact the petitioner developed illicit relations with the wife of his younger brother Balwant ant Singh about 7 years back. On this the respondent raised objection and tried to bring round the petitioner with the hope that he will mend his ways one day. But all in vain. The petitioner is living under the influence of his brother's wife. The petitioner used to consider the respondent as a hurdle in his way of love affairs with his brother's wife. Being annoyed by the objections of the respondent in love making and illegal connection with the wife of Balwant Singh". This petition, however, was dismissed for default on November 16, 1979. Later the respondent instead of seeking the relief of conjugal rights, filed an application under section 13 of the Act for seeking a decree of divorce. Though the appellant is alleged to have contested this petition, yet during the course of reconciliation proceedings, the parties reached a settlement as per which the appellant was to return to the house of the respondent on his father going to her place to fetch her. Statements of the parties to that effect were recorded by the trial Court. As a result of this settlement this petition under section 13 of the Act was dismissed as withdrawn on January 4, 1980. According to the respondent, since the appellant did not stand by the terms of the settlement and did not accompany his father to his place, he again filed the present petition under section 13 of the Act for the same relief of divorce. This as already indicated, have been granted to him.
(3.) Now the learned counsel for the appellant forcefully contends before me that the respondent has utterly failed to establish both the grounds, that is, cruelty and desertion, pleaded for the grant of the decree. From a bare reading of the judgment of the lower court it appears that tale parties to this litigation have been concentrating more on the ground of cruelty than on that of desertion. The lower Court has not even referred to or discussed any evidence relating to the ground of desertion but has simply concluded towards the end of paragraph 22 that "the evidence also establishes the ground of desertion".;