MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) HUSBAND is the appellant before us, who is aggrieved against the order of the lower Court in OP No. 12 of 1994 dated 25-3-1994.

( 2 ) THE appellant/husband had filed the said OP on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking to dissolve the marriage between the parties on the ground that the wife had withdrawn from the society of the husband without reasonable grounds. Before the lower Court it was alleged by the appellant/husband that his marriage with the respondent took place on 25-5-1991 at Rajahmundry, that they lived as wife and husband for about seven months without any hiccups and that thereafter she went away to her parents house and stayed back with her parents without any reasons. On this allegation the petition was laid beforethe lower Court seeking divorce by dissolving the marriage between the parties on the ground of desertion.

( 3 ) THE wife, though notice was served on her, failed to make her appearance before the Court and was set ex parte on 7-3-1994. The appellant/petitioner was examined on 21-3-1994 and Exs. A1 to A7 were marked on his behalf. The lower Court on the basis of Ex. A2 notice issued by the appellant requiring the wife to settle Rs. 16,000. 00 as promised by her parents during the period of marriage, held that it is the appellant alone who is responsible for the wife s leaving his society as he was demanding Rs. 16,000. 00 to be paid to him and, therefore, it held that wife cannot be held to be responsible for keeping away from his society and dismissed the application. This is the decision which is challenged before us.

( 4 ) SMT. Krishna, learned Counsel for the appellant/husband contended that the wife, though stayed for a period of seven months with the husband, has deserted him with the sole intention of brining an end to marital tie and further contended that the lower Court, without examining that aspect, has erroneously held that the cause of wife s withdrawal is demand of Rs. 16,000. 00 through Ex. A2. Learned Counsel further contended that the wife has been staying away from the society of the husband for several years though their marriage was performed in the year 1991. As required under Section 13 (l) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act with regard to seeking divorce on the ground of desertion, if two years period of separation preceding filing of the application is satisfied, either of the spouse is entitled to seek a divorce on the ground of desertion. Learned Counsel stated that OP No. 12 of 1994 was filed in the year 1994 and the requirement provided under Section 13 (1) (ib) has been satisfied by the husband; the lower Court ought to have seen that when the requirement is fulfilled, a decree of divorce could have been granted.

( 5 ) THOUGH notices in the appeal have been served on the respondent/wife, neithershe has appeared before us nor she is being represented by anybody. We, therefore, have taken up the matter for consideration on the basis of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant/husband, while perusing the decision of the lower Court.

( 6 ) WHEN desertion is pleaded as a ground for divorce under Section 13 (1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the party who seeks dissolution has to necessarily satisfy the two ingredients contemplated under Section 13 (l) (ib) of the Act, that is to say, the petitioner has to first of all satisfy that the wife has left his society for no fault of him and secondly, that leaving of the wife from the society of the husband is only to put, an end to the marital life. In this case, the appellant has examined himself as PW1. The deposition placed before us failed to disclose that the husband has proved the two facets of the requirement contemplated under Section 13 (1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

( 7 ) UNDER Section 23 (1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the law requires that even if the matter is uncontested by the other party, there must be su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document