T.S.ISRANI,J. - (1.) THIS Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity, 'the Act, 1955') has been filed against the judgment dated December 20, 1986, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jaipur, in case No. 125/86.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the marriage of the parties was solemnized on or about May 17, 1973, in accordance with the Hindu, rites, and customs, at Sawaimadhopur. After the function of 'Muklava', held in the year, 1976, respondent resided with the appellant at his village Kherlawas, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur. It is alleged that the respondent, in the year, 1977, while the appellant was studying in Government College, Dausa, without reasonable cause, suddenly left the house of the appellant and went to her father, without consent and permission of the appellant and has not returned since August 8, 1977. The respondent filed proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C., for grant of maintenance and was awarded Rs. 200/ - per month as maintenance, which the appellant is paying to her. It is submitted by Mr. U.N. Bhandari, learned Counsel, that proceedings for divorce under Section 13 of the Act, 1955 were filed on July 31, 1985. It is further submitted that the said petition was filed on three grounds; namely, (i) cruelty; (ii) adultery;, and (iii) desertion. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel has pressed the grounds of desertion and adultery. It is also submitted that parties are living separately since August 8, 1977 and there is no possibility of conciliation between the parties and, thus, the marriage has broken irretrievably. The desertion became complete after two years from the date she left the matrimonial house, i.e., August 8, 1977. It is pointed out that the respondent gave birth to a male child, much after 280 days from the date she left the matrimonial house and during that period, the respondent had no access to the appellant so as to allow them to resume cohabitation. Thus, it is proved that the respondent is leading an adulterous life. It is further pointed out that no date of birth of the child was registered in the Municipal Records, nor was the appellant informed at the time of birth of the child.
(3.) IT is submitted by Mr. Goverdhan Bardhar, learned Counsel, that from the statement of respondent, it is clear that she was forced to leave the matrimonial house and burden regarding desertion is squarely on the appellant, who alleged the same. It is further submitted that there is no proof of adultery Whatsoever, nor the name of any person has been disclosed. It is also submitted that, according to the appellant himself, he came to stay after few months with the respondent in the house of her parents. It is pointed out that when she was forced to leave them atrimonial house, she had pregnancy of four months.;