Desertion requires intentional abandonment without consent and reasonable cause; the court found desertion established while cruelty was not proven.

Judgment :

(Rajani Dubey, J.)

Challenge in this appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is to the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 26.6.2019 passed by Family Court, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No.121-A/2017 whereby the application under Section 27(1)(B)(D) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 filed by the respondent/plaintiff has been allowed and consequently, the marriage of the parties solemnized on 7.7.2008 has been dissolved.

02. The admitted fact is that marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnized on 7.7.2008 before the District Marriage Officer, Rajnandgaon and from their wedlock, one daughter was born who is living with the appellant.

03. The respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Section 27(1) (B)(D) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 with the averments that after marriage, behaviour of the appellant towards the respondent and his family members was ignorant and cruel; she started pressurizing the respondent for living separately from his parents and even when the respondent was living separately at Kaurinbhata, Rajnandgaon in a rented accommodation, she used to pick up quarrel on trivial issues and started going to her parental house every now and then. After birth of a daughter, she lived with the respondent only for six months and thereafter, on the pretext of seeing her parents, she left the rented accommodation of her own and started living at Village-Pendri, Rajnandgaon. Though the respondent tried his level best to bring her back through intervention of his relatives and friends and also filed an application under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act before the Family Court, Rajnandgaon for restitution of conjugal rights but despite issuance of several notices and even after publication of notice in newspaper, she deliberately remained absent. Ultimately, being fed up with the conduct of the appellant, he withdrew the said application on 28.8.2010. She is deliberately living separately from the respondent for the last 7-8 years and therefore, he prayed for grant of a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

04. The appellant/defendant in her written statement contended that as she is of Satnami caste and the respondent is of Sahu caste, he did not ever take her to his home and was residing separately with her. After birth of the daughter, she was living with him at Karuinbhata. However, after some time he stopped living with her there, he also did not pay any attention to the daughter, stopped paying the rent and giving her money, therefore, she was compelled to leave the said accommodation and live at her parental house. She stated that she neither received any notice from the Court nor has any knowledge about publication of notice in the newspaper. The respondent never took any step to keep her with him. Theirs was a love marriage. After marriage, they lived together for two years in Jagdalpur (CG). The respondent has two mothers, the biological mother living at Village- Pendri and step mother in Jagdalpur with his father. She being a member of scheduled caste, the respondent never took her to either of his houses. After return from Jagdalpur, they lived for four years in rented accommodation and in the year 2009 he went away saying that he is going to Jagdalpur and thereafter stopped visiting her and giving her money for daily expenses which forced her to live at her parental house. As the respondent got government employment, he wanted to get rid of her and contract second marriage, therefore, on false allegations he filed the instant application. She stated that though she wants to live with the respondent, however, if the Court finds that there is no possibility of restitution of conjugal rights between the parties, the respondent be directed to give Rs.20 lacs as permanent alimony for the maintenance of the appellant and the minor daughter.

05. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Family Court framed issues a