Living separately without reasonable cause and not discharging matrimonial obligations without any reasonable cause amounts to cruelty under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Prakash Tatia, J.-This appeal is against the Judgment and decree dated 04.01.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Rajsamand in Divorce Case No.69/96 filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the respondent.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the plaintiff respondent with appellant-defendant took place in the year 1987. According to the plaintiff , the defendant lived with the plaintiff till the year 1988 for one year only. According to the plaintiff , the defendants attitude towards plaintiff and his family members became very inimical and hence she used to quarrel with the plaintiff and his family members. In the year 1988, the defendant-appellant gave threat that she will take poison or will burn herself and implicate the plaintiff and his family members. She tried to burn herself 2-3 times but she was saved by the plaintiff and his family members. It is alleged that since the year 1988, after the said dispute, the defendant left the plaintiff and is living at her parental house. The plaintiff sought decree for divorce on the ground of desertion as well as on the ground of cruelty by filing the divorce petition on 110.1996.

3. The appellant-defendant submitted written statement and stated that she lived with the husband till 1996 and since she could not give birth to any child, therefore, plaintiff s mother as well as plaintiff , who was influenced of his mother, had intention to marry second time and, therefore, they used to harass the defendant. The defendant-appellant specifically pleaded that on 17.09.1996, the defendant was given beating and was turned out from the house and since then she is living with her mother and father. Issues were framed and the plaintiff gave his statement and produced witnesses AW-2 Rajesh, AW-3 Dalpat Singh,AW- 4 Santosh Kumar, AW-5 Vinod and AW-6 Mahesh, whereas defendant appellant gave her statement and produced witnesses NAW-2 Suresh and NAW-3 Tulsidas. The trial Court decided both the issues in favour of the plaintiff -respondent and granted the decree for divorce by impugned Judgment and decree dated 04.01.2000. Hence this appeal.

4. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the Court below committed serious error of fact in holding that the appellant left the respondent-plaintiff after one year of their marriage in the year 1988, whereas the appellant produced witnesses and gave her statement to prove that she lived with the husband since 1996. She gave specific date on which date she was turned out by the plaintiff and his family members. It is also submitted that if the age of the plaintiff is calculated from the age given by the plaintiff in his statement, then at the time of marriage of the appellant-defendant with the respondent plaintiff , the age of the respondent-husband was 15 years only whereas the age of the wife appellant was 13 years. It is submitted that from the statement of the plaintiff himself , it comes out that the defendant appellant lived with the husband at least for 8 years and that comes to the year 1996. It is submitted that since no issue was born to the plaintiff and defendant, therefore, the appellant-defendants mother-in-law instigated respondent-plaintiff to contract second marriage so that the respondent may have child and, therefore, false allegations have been levelled against the appellant-defendant by the respondent plaintiff . It is also submitted that the Court below did not consider the appellants unconditional offer that she is ready and willing to live with the husband. It is also submitted that the witnesses produced by the appellant clearly proved the fact that the appellant-defendant was turned out by the plaintiff-respondent. In view of the above reasons, the decree for divorce granted by the Court below deserves to be set aside.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that all the allegations levelled against appellant by the respondent about the cruelty are absolutely