- (1.) Smt. Phool Pati and Smt. Rajo, two sisters, got married to Ram Phal and Bhira respectively. Ram Phal and Bhira are brothers. Both the marriages took place on the same date somewhere in the year 1965. Smt. Phool Pati gave birth to a daughter who did not survive. She is alleged to have left her husband house 5/6 years before the filing of petition for divorce (divorce petition was filed in 1980). Couple of months thereafter, she gave birth to a male child who is still alive. Smt. Rajo is alleged to have left the house of her husband 2/3 months after Smt. Phool Pati had left the house. It is alleged that inspite of taking Panchayats, both did not return. Consequently, two separate petitions for divorce on the ground of desertion were filed by the husband.
(2.) The petitions were contested by the wives. Since the facts are somewhat similar, the facts regarding Snit. Phool Pati only are being noticed in this judgment. The stand of Smt. Phool Pati was that her husband used to drink and give heating to her and inspite of persuation he neither stopped drinking nor beating her. Few months before the birth of male child, she was given merciless heating as a result, she was turned out of the house in three clothes and then she started living with her parents where she gave birth to male child It was denied that she ever withdrew from the society of her husband or deserted him. It was her case that both the brothers along with others, came to their village and assaulted them and they were bound down under section 107/151 of of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Against that order, her husband went up in appeal and on the intervention of, the learned Sessions Judge, she accompanied her husband but again after a few days, she was turned out of tote house. Smt. she was not being paid maintenance, she filed proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in these proceedings, Rs. 150/- per month were awarded as maintenance for her and her male child. After the maintenance was allowed by the Court, the divorce petition was filed.
(3.) On the contest of the parties, the following issues were framed 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce on grounds stated in paragraph No. 4 to 8 of the petition ? 2. Relief. After evidence was led, the learned District Judge by decision dated 4-6-1981, allowed the applications of the husbands and granted decrees of divorce after recording a finding that the wives deserted the husbands without any reasonable cause. The wives have cone to this Court in appeals and F. A. O. No. 102-M of 1981 has been filed by Smt. Phool Pati whereas F. A. No. 101-M of 1981 has been filed by Smt. Rajo. On peculiar facts of these cases, they are being disposed of together by this common judgment. 3A. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the entire record, I am of the view that the Court below erred in allowing the divorce petitions. From a reading of the statements of Rain Phal and his four witnesses. I find that his case does not stand substantiated. His case is that his wife's attitude was harsh from the very beginning and she used to beat him and also refused to cook meals. She never wanted to work in the fields nor did she want to do the household work. This matter was never put to Stilt. Phool Pati when she appeared as R.W.1. On the other hand: the statement of the wife that she was turned out of the house after being given beating in advance stage of pregnancy appears to be correct because the husband made no efforts to pay maintenance either to the wife or for bringing up of the child. Moreover, the case of the wife that the husband was addicted to drinking and when she objected to the sane, he used to give her heating, was put to him, although he denied the suggestion.;