Muni Lal Verma, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is sequel of the matrimonial rupture between the parties and atone in these circumstances: Sudarshan Singh Appellant was married to Shrimati Kuldip Kaur Respondent on November 17/18, 1956 at Amritsar, and they lived there as husband and wife. A son and a daughter were born to them. The daughter had, however, died. On Jure 12, 1959, the Respondent withdrew from the society of the Appellant and began to reside with her parents who are also living at Amritsar. On the intervention of the respectable and relations, their differences were resolved and the Respondent resumed the society of the Appellant on June 21, 196(sic), and continued living with him for about four and a half years. On December 31, 1964, she abandoned the matrimonial home without any cause, deserted the Appellant and did not return to him despite his efforts to secure her society, She joined the Librarian Course at Chandigarh and thereafter she secured employment as Librarian firstly at Batala and then in the Modern College for Women at Amritsar. She had also been guilty of cruelty which gave reasonable apprehension in the mind of the Appellant that it would be harmful or injurious for him to live with her. She had been giving beatings to him and she had given tooth bite on his chest on December 30, 1964 and next day she had left him for good. With these allegations, the Appellant petitioned for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter railed the Act), on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. He had also claimed the custody of his son.
(2.) THE Respondent contested the petition moved by the Appellant. She admitted the factum of marriage as well as the birth of two children from her to the Appellant. She controverter the other material allegations made by the Appellant, and pleaded that he (the Appellant) and his mother had been maltreating and taunting her for not bringing adequate dowry and she had been subjected to violence a number of times and had been ultimately, turned out of the house by the Appellant on June 12, 1959, that she had given tooth -bite on the chest of the Appellant to save herself from his clutches when he was bodily lifting her with a view to throw her down from the roof of the house. Hence, the petition was tried on the following issues: (1) Whether the Petitioner has been deserted by the Respondent since December 31, 1954. OPP (2) Whether the Respondent is guilty of cruelty as alleged and the Petitioner possesses reasonable apprehension in his mind that it will be harmful and injurious for him to live with the Respondent ? OPP (3) whether the Petitioner is entitled to the custody of the minor child named Guiu and whether such a prayer is maintainable in the present petition ? OPR. (4) Relief. Issue No. 3 was not pressed and the trial Court ignored it with the remark that it was redundant. It decided issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the negative and dismissed petition with costs. Dissatisfied with the said result, Sudarshan Singh came to this Court in appeal.
(3.) THE facts that the parties were married at Amritsar on November 17/18, 1956 and then after they had lived as husband and wife and a son and a daughter were born to them, the daughter had died and the son is alive, that on account of soma estrangement the Respondent left the house of the Appellant on June 12, 1959 and resided with her parents till June 21, 1960 when on the intervention of the respectable and relations she returned to his house and lived there till December 31, 1964 when she again left his house and there her joined the librarian Course at Chandigarh and secured employment as Librarian, firstly at Banng College, Batala and then in the Modern College for Women at Amritsar and she had also given tooth -bite on the chest of the Appellant on December 30, 1964 ; and that she had not so far returned to the house of the Appellant, are admitted. In support of appeal, Mr. H.S. Wasu, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, assailed the findings recorded by the trial Court and argued that both the grounds viz., desertion and cruelty on the part of the Respondent were fully proved by the evidence and circumstances of the case. On the contrary, Mr. Tirath Singh Munjral, Learned Counsel for the Respondent, supported the judgment of the trial Court with the contentions that the findings had been correctly recorded by it on both the aforesaid issues, i.e. Nos. 1 and 2, and accused the Appellant of constructive desertion I see merit in the arguments advanced by Mr. Wasu, in my opinion, the contentions raised by Mr. Munjral, are not well -founded, so far as the ground of desertion is concerned.;