D. V. Sehgal, J. - (1.) This first appeal from the order is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21-1-1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepore, allowing a petition under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by Om Parkash Dhawan, husband respondent and granting a decree of divorce in his favour and against Smt. Meena Dhawan, wife- appellant.
(2.) The respondent filed the petition under Sec. 13 of the Act stating that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 12-10-1975, at Ferozepore, according to Hindu rities. Out of this wed-lock a daughter named Sangeeta was born, on 22-1-1977, who is residing with the appellant. Before the marriage the appellant was posted as a teacher in Government School, at Pirke Khangarh and the respondent was posted at Fazilka. At the time of filing of the petition, the appellant was posted at village Dod and was coming to Ferozepore daily after attending to her duties and the respondent was posted at Zira but his permanent residence was also at Ferozepore. After the marriage the parties started residing together in the parental house of the respondent at Ferozepore city. The respondent used to go from Fazilka to Ferozepore on week ends to spend Saturday and Sunday, being holidays. After about one month of the marriage, it was alleged by the respondent, the appellant started insisting that he should separate from his parents and shift residence to Ferozepore Carat. near the parental house of the appellant to which he did not agree. Her behaviour during the stay with him was uncalled for and non-cooperative. She never attended to the house hold work. She used to quarrel with him and other members of the family on trifling matters. She refused to prepare tea for his guests and friends. She did not respect his parents. Their relations started deterioting and ultimately the appellant left the matrimonial home for good and never returned. The parties have been living separate since 5-3-1977. He further alleged that the appellant used to call him bad names and her behaviour towards him was cruel. He thus alleged that he had been treated by the appellant with cruelty. He maintained that he took Panchayats to the house of the appellant many a time to join back the matrimonial home but she refused to do so. She was requested to give up her job and reside with him at the place of his posting but she did not submit her resignation nor did she join his society. It was thus alleged that she had withdrawn from the society of the respondent since 5-3-1977 and has been residing at Ferozepore Cantt. with her parents away from the matrimonial home and thus she had deserted the respondent for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the date of presentation of the petition. It was further stated that the break down of marriage had occurred on account of the fault of the appellant. All efforts at reconciliation had failed. It was also alleged that while leaving the matrimonial home she took away all gold ornaments and valuables which she was having with her. It was further alleged that after the parties have been living separate from each other for over 72 years, the appellant filed an application under Sec. 9 of the Act claiming restitution of conjugal rights with mala fide intention. She had in fact no intention to return to the matrimonial home. He appeared in the court in response to the said petition, filed his written statement and also filed a counter petition under . Sec. 23-A of the Act for grant of divorce. When the petition was fixed for hearing on 25-8-1984 and he had brought five witnesses to depose in his favour, the appellant got her petition dismissed in default. He claimed that he had not in any manner been accessory to or connived at or condoned the the acts complained in the petition and that the petition had been presented without any unnecessary or improper delay.
(3.) The appellant filed her written statement opposing the petition. She admitted the factum of marriage. She denied that she ever asked the respondent to live separate from his parents and to shift to Ferozepore Cantt. She further denied that he parties have been living separate since 5.3.1977. She alleged that, in fact, she had been turned out of the matrimonial home in Jan., 1983. She denied all allegations of cruelty. She instead alleged that the parents of the respondent are greedy. They are after her salary and compelled her to bring more money from her parents as they were not satisfied with her monthly income. She has been in service abiding by the wishes of the respondent, who never wanted her to leave service. In fact, he married her only keeping in view her earning from service. She denied the respondent ever having taken Panchayats to her parental home. According to her, no such occasion ever arose. She had in fact herself many a time gone to the respondent's house and tried her level best to rehabilitate herself in the matrimonial home but the respondent did not allow her to live with him. She further alleged that the wives of two elder brothers of the respondent had also been maltreated and that the whole family was in the habit of maltreating their wives and daughters-in-law. She stated that since 1983, she had been turned out of the house by the respondent and has been living separately but she denied that she had deserted the respondent for a continuous period of two years immediately preceding the date of presentation of the petition. She further averred that her ornaments which were her Istridhan were in the custody of the respondent and according to her information he had sold the same to build a house at Karnal. She admitted that she had filed an application under Sec. 9 of the Act, which had been dismissed due to her non-appearance. She denied the assertion of the respondent that there has not been unnecessary or improper delay in filing the petition. To further make her stand clear, she stated that if the petitioner's allegation that separation between the parties had taken place in 1977 is taken into consideration, then the petition suffers from inordinate delay. On the other hand if her assertion is believed that she was turned out of the matrimonial home in 1983, then the continuous period of two years had not yet been completed before the instant petition was filed by the respondent. Therefore, the ground of desertion was not available to him.;