- (1.) BY way of this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant impugns the judgment, dated 15.10.2001, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby FAO No. 117M of 1998, impugning the order, dated 29.4.1998, passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, was dismissed. A brief narrative of the facts would be appropriate. The appellant and the respondent were married in May, 1969. After their marriage, they lived at village Saidipur. As per the appellant, the respondent conceived, during her stay of three months but left her matrimonial home in August 1969 and thereafter failed to return and cohabit with the appellant, despite his best efforts. The appellant was posted at Gurdaspur and travelled to and from his village Saidipur, as he had to look after his widowed mother, three younger sisters and brothers. The respondent began coercing the appellant to reside at Gurdaspur. The appellant refused to accede to this demand. The respondent, therefore, packed her jewellery, clothes, as also other articles, and left for Jalandhar. A child was born to the parties on 1.2.1970. The appellant requested the respondent to return. The respondent refused to return and the parties continued to reside separately. In the year 1994, 25 years after the marriage, the appellant filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by grant of a decree of divorce, alleging cruelty and desertion. However, the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur dismissed the petition.
(2.) THE appellant preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The trial Court, as also the learned Single held that the appellant had failed to establish cruelty or desertion on the part of the respondent-wife. Counsel for the appellant contends that the wife is guilty of desertion. She failed to co-habitat with the appellant, without just cause. It is contended that soon after their marriage, the respondent-wife deserted the appellant, as she was unable to adjust to life in a village. Her admission that she visited her husband and his family members on a few occasions, is sufficient to infer that she was guilty of desertion. It is further contended that the respondent failed to justify her separate residence, thus, raising an inference that she intended to sever matrimonial ties permanently. The learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the appeal. The learned Single Judge failed to consider the facts of the case and proceeded to dismiss the appeal in a perfunctory manner. The pleadings and the evidence on record clearly indicate an intention on the part of the respondent to sever matrimonial ties permanently and, therefore, desertion, having been established, the learned Single Judge erred in upholding the judgment of the trial Court. Reliance, by counsel for the appellant, is placed upon Adhyatma Bhattar Alwar v Adhyatma Bhattar Sri Devi, (2002)1 SCC 308 and Dharam Pal v. Smt. Pushpa Devi, 2005(4) RCR(Civil) 717 : 2006(3) Civil Course Cases 168.
(3.) AS regards the plea of cruelty, it is contended that the appellant resorted to the extreme step of filing a petition for dissolution of marriage, as their daughter's wedding was solemnized, without his consent. Even the invitation card was received by the appellant after the marriage. The aforementioned act, as also the act of withdrawal from matrimony constitute cruelty and entitle the appellant to the grant of a decree of divorce.;