FAROOQ HASSAN, J.—Apparently a coil of reversals is the fate of this litigative battle before this Court between the appellant and the respondent over a petition for divorce sought by the appellant-husband on the ground of desertion as provided for in S. 13(1) (b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (for brevity, the Act). The first inning of the litigative match was fought and played before the District Judge, Kota, who, on an evaluation of the relative merits and demerits of the rivals, granted a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage solemnized between the parties, on the ground of desertion (supra), but this victory of the husband was short-lived because at the second inning of the legal bout, the Single Judge of this Court inverting the decree of divorce dismissed the husbands petition holding that the desertion by the wife is not proved. Hence the worsted appellant invokes the jurisdiction of the Division Bench of this Court by filing special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 seeking that we should review the decision impugned, re-judge the relevance and weight of the points, pro and con, and as a result of this, adjudicatory exercise on facts sparingly. .

2. The voluminous accord which the spouses have collectively built up in the case contains a reflection of their rancour an acrimony, a thumb-nail sketch of which herein will help resolve the legal controversy canvassed in this appeal before us.

3. The appellant was married with the respondent on June 11, 1973, according to Hindu rites at New Delhi, and the spouses were living in Kota where the appellant was employed as a medical officer in the Railway hospital. Soon after the marriage the appellant detected that the respondent was suffering from fibroid uterine tumour. Admittedly, the parties last resided together at Kota till May 17, 1974, on which date, the respondent left her in-laws matrimonial home allegedly for the purpose of medical examination and treatment of the said tumour but, thereafter she did not return. The crux of the rancour is that, even after she was informed well in advance, she did not come to be pre-sent by the bed side of the husband during his hernia operation in August, 1974 so also thereafter, and did not join him even in his days, of grief or for the obsequies on the occasion of the death of his father in March, 1975 and of his mother in December, 1975 inspite of the fact that she was remembered by persistent requests by the husband. .

4. The husband had also moved a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in the District Court at Kota oh October 3, 1974, which was resisted by the wife and obviously she was determined not to turn. Pendente petition for restitution of conjugal rights, the husband filed the present petition for divorce on grounds of cruelty & desertion made with animus deserend on December 21, 1976. The petition for restitution of conjugal right was got dismissed as withdrawn on April 30, 1977.

5. The wife (respondent) resisted the petition for divorce tooth and nail by vehemently refuting all the allegations levelled against her especially the allegation about her chastity & moral character. She, denying that she and her parents had any knowledge before her marriage about her suffering from fibroid uterine tumour, asserted that it was only after the marriage that the husband being an experienced medical practitioner discovered the said tumour (supra) and it was the husband himself who sent her to Delhi for treatment which she plea-ded to continue there and because of that, as she pleaded, it was not possible for her to stay at Kota. She asserted that making wrong, malicious and reckless allegations against her chastity and moral character, she was virtually turned out of the home after maltreatment and beating. The maintainability of the petition for divorce was also assailed on the ground that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was sub-judice though it was withdrawn later on.

6. T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document