Veena vs Makhan Lal
1983 Latest Caselaw 195 Del

JUDGMENT

M.L. Jain, J.

(1) No one is present on behalf of the respondent-though the case for long has been on board and was listed at No. I today. I have heard the .learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

(2) The parties were married on 24-6-1977. The respondent husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 3 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of desertion. The wife filed a counter claim for divorce under Section 23-A of the Act.

(3) The husband's petition was dismissed on 6-8-1982.

(4) The claim of the wife was also disallowed and her prayer for divorce was dismissed on 28-8-1982. She has appealed.

(5) The wife's allegations of cruelty are as follows :-

(1)She was mal-treated and beaten because money was demanded of her which she could not provide ;

(2)She had taken a job in Kataria Nursing Home but the husband saw to it that her services were terminated ;

(3)The husband committed theft of jewellery worth Rs. 15000.00 from her parents' house

(6) The learned Additional District Judge found that the allegations regarding theft of jewellery and beating could not be believed for want of report by her to the police in this connection.

(7) I have gone through her statement. It does not seem proper to disbelieve her simply because she did not care to lodge a report with the police. I do not see any reason to discard her testimony. There is also evidence to show that the husband has deserted her without any reasonable excuse for more than two years. Even otherwise, the case of the parties is that they have been living separately for more than two years without any chance of reconciliation. The marriage has irretrievably broken down : see Parihar (Priti) v. Parihar (Kailash Singh), , and M. Akkamma v. M. Jagannadham, Air 1981 A.P. 26). Nothing seems to work out so as to save their marriage.

(8) I, therefore, accept the contention of the wife and consequently accept this appeal as well, set aside the impugned order and hereby dissolve the marriage of the parties. Costs of this appeal shall be borne by the husband.