A petitioner must provide substantive evidence of desertion for a divorce to be granted; mere absence or disputes does not constitute legally recognized grounds for dissolution.

JUDGMENT :

A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.

Introductory:-

1. The petitioner in O.P.No.49 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada (for short “the Family Court”), filed the present appeal questioning the order and decree dated 20.07.2007 passed by the Family Court, whereunder the petition filed by the husband under Section 13 (1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the petitioner and the respondent with reference to their status before the Family Court (O.P.No.49 of 2004).

Case of the Petitioner:

3(i). The petitioner married the respondent on 22.09.1990 after the death of his 1^st wife who is none other than the elder sister of the respondent and petitioner and respondent lived together at Vallabhapuram village in a rented house belonging to one Sri Venkata Rama Reddy from the year 1994 to 1996. On 26.05.2001, the respondent left the matrimonial home along with their minor child Kavitha and went to her parental home at Madras without informing him or his parents and that, from then onwards, she has been residing with her parents.

(ii). The petitioner got issued a legal notice under Ex.A1, which was received by the respondent, but she did not return to the matrimonial home. Alleging that the respondent deserted him without reasonable cause and failed to discharge her marital obligations, he has initiated the present proceedings seeking dissolution of marriage.

Case of the Respondent:

4(i). The respondent denied the allegation of desertion. She contended that on 24.05.2003, her parents came to Vijayawada and the petitioner himself sent her along with them to Madras for a short stay, assuring that he would come and take her back.

(ii). She further stated that the petitioner, instead of making efforts for taking back, issued a false legal notice dated 23.07.2003, to which she gave a reply dated 22.08.2003 expressing her willingness to join him at Vijayawada and that she never deserted him as alleged.

(iii). It is also contended that the petitioner did not make any effort for mediation or restitution of conjugal rights for more than two years after the alleged desertion but the petition was filed only to pressurize her and her parents in respect of custody of child.

Findings of the Family Court:

5(i). The petitioner failed to prove that the respondent deserted him. The petitioner did not take any steps for conciliation, mediation or restitution of conjugal rights.

(ii). If there was desertion, the petitioner would have taken proper legal steps to bring back the respondent. His silence and inaction for a long time clearly negatives his plea.

(iii). The petitioner is not entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and accordingly the petition is liable to be dismissed.

Arguments in the Appeal:

For the appellant (Husband):

6(i). The Family Court erred in dismissing the petition despite clear evidence of desertion by the respondent.

(ii). The respondent left the matrimonial home along with the minor child without any justification and refused to join the appellant in spite of issuance of legal notice. Therefore, desertion is proved.

(iii). The conduct of the respondent clearly establishes her intention to quit the matrimonial relationship.

(iv). There is no representation on behalf of the respondent (wife). The respondent did not choose to prosecute this appeal properly.

(v). Since there is no representation for her, it shall be taken that the appellant’s case is admitted by the respondent and hence the appeal is liable to be allowed.

7. There is no representation for respondent. After providing reasonable opportunity and after posting the matter under the caption “for orders” for more than three times, learned counsel for the appellant was heard and the matter was reserved for judgment.

8. Perused the impugned order, ground