S.K.MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) THE appellant -husband (hereinafter called as 'the appellant') has bled this appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Bhilwara dated December 23, 1977, by which he dismissed the petition of the appellant filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for divorce.
(2.) THE facts which have given rise to this appeal are as follows : The appellant, Jaishanktr was married with Smt. Chandresh, respondent -wife (hereinafter called as 'the respondent') on May 26, 1973 at Bijainagar. Both of them lived together as husband and wife in village Roopahale Tehsil Murdha, District Bhilwara upto February 26, 1975. The case of the appellant is that on February 26, 1975, the respondent bad left the company of the appellant of her own will, without just and reasonable cause and since then she has been living at the house of her father, Mad an Lai Shatma in village Panotia, Tehsil Shahpura The appellant claimed a decree of divorce on the following grounds: (i) that the respondent has deserted the appellant for more than 2 years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition (petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was submitted on March 4, 1977). (ii) that the respondent is suffering from mental disorder 'one of the grounds on which divorce can be claimed under Section 13 of the Act is that the respondent has been incurably of unsound mind or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that it cannot be reasonably expected to live with the respondent. (iii) that she has, after the marriage had voluntary sexual intercourse with other persons and is leading an unchaste life, and (iv) that the respondent has, after the marriage, treated the appellant with cruelty. It was further stated that the respondent's behaviour was not that of what should he of a faithful wife, that she quarrelled with the appellant & that she used the sleep in a separate room. It was also alleged that she did not do the house bold work The appellant has also stated, in the petition, that on October 20, 1975, the respondent, through her father, filed a false complaint under Section 107 and 116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against him and his mother and father in the court of the sub -Divisional Magistrate, Shabpura which was dismissed on May 22, 1976 for want of evidence. From the averments made in the application, it is clear that the appellant has claimed a decree of divorce on the grounds of desertion, adultery, mental disorder and cruelty. As stated above, this petition under Section 13 of the Act was field on March 4, 1977. The respondent contested the petition. She stated that after her marriage she and the appellant lived together as husband and wife for about two years and that she did not leave the company of her husband on February 26, 1975 as alleged by the appellant, but in April, 1975 after 5 or 7 days of 'Holi', the appellant, his mother and father turned her out of the house after beating her and thereafter she was compelled to live with her parents. She denied the grounds of desertion, adultery, mental disorder and cruelty. In regard to the grand of desertion, besides denying the same, an objection was taken that two years have not elapsed immediately preceding the presentation of the petition under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act and, therefore, on the ground of desertion, the petition is not maintainable. She pleaded that the behaviour of the appellant as well as his mother and father towards her was cruel and without any reason they used to beat her. It was averred that the character of the appellant's mother is bad about which she complained to the appellant and it is on account of this reasin, that the members of his family often beat her and in April 1975, she was turned out of the house by the appellant and his parents after beating her. As regards the initiation of proceedings under Section 107 and 116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she stated that her father correctly initiated them against the appellant and his mother and father.
(3.) THE learned District Judge framed as many as eight issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties.;