J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) The appellant husband has filed this appeal against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Rupnagar whereby his petition under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (hereinafter called the Act), for the grant of a decree of divorce was dismissed.
(2.) The marriage between the parties was solemnised on Feb. 20, 1968 at Nangal Township. At that time the respondent wife was serving as a Headmistress there. She lived with the appellant up to May 20, 1968, when she was transferred to the Government Girls High School, Anandpur Sahib. The appellant did not wish that she should shift to Anandpur Sahib. He even persuaded her to leave her job and to live with him at Nangal. According to him, on this suggestion, the respondent became arrogant and said that she was not prepared to leave her job. Thus, according to him, she left him against his will in May, 1968 and started living at Anandpur Sahib upto Sept. 8, 1972. The appellant averred that he had been making efforts to secure her transfer to Nangal and that on Sept. 9, 1972, she was transferred there. She lived with him there for about ten days and during this period, her treatment with him was not good and that she was accusing him of securing her transfer to that place. She did not vacate the quarter allotted to her at Anandpur Sahib and that on that account she had no intention to live with him at Nangal. It was further alleged that she accused him of his small and inadequate salary and openly said that the way of life to which she was accustomed was not available to her at Nangal in his house and that she had committed a blunder in marrying him as her mother had committed a blunder in marrying her father. She would live the life of her own choice and would not behave like an orthodox Hindu wife and would prefer to live alone at Anandpur Sahib than to live with him whose company she did not like. According to the appellant, he along with some respectables requested her mother for giving him the company of the respondent and that it was with great difficulty that the respondent agreed in Feb., 1973, to visit Nangal and to occasionally live with him which she did up to April, 1973. Even during the said period, she remained cool to-wards him and some times hurled accusations on him and also caused him mental torture resulting into deterioration of his health. According to him, the whole conduct of the respondent was an act of cruelty. She finally left him on May 1, 1973 and despite his repeated efforts, refused to join his company and that to all intents and purposes, she had intentionally deserted him. On these allegations, the appellant filed a petition for the grant of a decree for judicial separation under Sec. 10 of the Act against her in July, 1975. The respondent, without any intention to join him and in order to defraud him, made a statement on Oct. 26, 1976, in Court to the effect that she would resume cohabitation with him at Nangal Township and that her mother would not live with her there. He having believed the said statement got the petition under Sec. 10 of the Act dismissed as withdrawn. The respondent never acted upon the said statement and never cared to live with him at Nangal Township. When he went to Anandpur Sahib, she and her mother abused him and did not allow him to enter the house. She openly said that she was not prepared to live with him at any cost. It was on these basis that it was stated that the respondent continued deserting him since May 1, 1973, and that she had no intention to resume his company. Hence the prayer for the grant of a decree for divorce by dissolution of the marriage. In the written the respondent took up the preliminary objection that the appellant had filed the petition under Sec. 10 of the Act almost entirely on the same grounds of desertion and the allegations of cruelty and that the said petition was decided on Oct. 26, 1976, on the basis of the compromise and was dismissed as withdrawn. It was, thus, stated that in view of the said compromise, the petition under Sec. 13 of the Act, on the same allegation was (not) competent. The other allegations made in the petition were also controverted and it was stated that the respondent was drawing Rs. 532.00 as her salary while the appellant was drawing Rs. 312.00 as his salary, per month, and that the father of the appellant began to mak excessive and unreasonable demands on her income due to which the relations took an unhappy turn from the very start on the transfer from Nangal to Anandpur Sahib on May 20, 1968. Regarding the alleged compromise in the previous petition, it was pleaded that the compromise was arrived at in consequence of the statements made by the parties on Oct. 26, 1976 and that on Nov. 1, 1976, she had applied for her transfer to Nangal to which she had received the reply that her transfer would be considered at the time of the general transfer and that she had informed the appellant accordingly. The charge of maltreatment was baseless and false and that she had made several efforts to contact him, but failed. Thus, she never deserted him since May 1, 1973, as alleged by him and had no intention to do so. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues : (1) Whether the respondent gave a statement in the Court of the Sub-ordinate judge, First Class, Anandpur Sahib, in Petition No. 13 of 1976, to defraud the petitioner and as a result thereof, the petition was withdrawn? (2) In case issue No. 1 is not proved, whether the petition is mala fide ? (3) Whether the respondent is guilty of desertion, as alleged ? (4) Whether the respondent is guilty of cruelty, as alleged ? (5) Whether the petitioner had condoned the acts of cruelty and desertion complained of? (6) Relief. Issues Nos. I and 2 were discussed together and both were decided in favour of the respondent by the trial Court. It was held thereunder that the petition as such was not maintainable as the previous petition was withdrawn in consequence of the statements made by the appellant and the respondent and not on the basis of the statement made by the respondent alone. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that the respondent gave the statement, a copy of which is, Exhibit A.W. 8/B, to defraud the appellant in con-sequence of which the petition was withdrawn. Under issue No. 3, the trial Court concluded that the respondent was not guilty of desertion, as alleged. Issues Nos. 4 and 5 were also discussed together and it was found that the respondent was not guilty of cruelty, as alleged, and that the appellant had condoned the facts of cruelty and desertion complained of. As a result, the petition for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant husband has come up in appeal to this Court.
(3.) This appeal is pending since the year 1978. Many efforts for re-conciliation between the parties were made in this Court. The last effort was made on Oct. 28, 1982. At that time, both the parties agreed to go & live together, but unfortunately, it appears that it did not happen. According to the respondent, the husband never came to take her as agreed by him in the Court. However, without going into the allegations and the counter allegations, the efforts of reconciliation between the parties made by this Court have failed and ultimately, the appeal has to be disposed of on its merits.;