Point of Law: “Desertion” means desertion of petitioner by other party to marriage without reasonable cause and without consent or against wish of such party.

JUDGMENT :

SATYEN VAIDYA, J.

1. This is an appeal of the husband against judgment and decree dated 19.06.2010, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, H.P. Camp at Rohru in H.M.A. Petition No. 1-R/3 of 2006, whereby his petition for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short “the Act”) has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the appeal are that the husband filed a petition for dissolution of his marriage with respondent (wife) alleging inter alia that he was married to the respondent in the year 1987 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Two children were born to the parties out of the wedlock. Respondent resided and cohabitated with husband till 1995 and thereafter she started living in the house of her parents. As per husband, the behavior of the respondent since the time of solemnization of marriage with the petitioner and his family members was not good. She used to quarrel with them and would leave her matrimonial house. Their relationship deteriorated to the such extent that it became impossible for husband to live with respondent. Finally, respondent left the company of husband forever by leaving minor children in the custody of husband. It was further alleged that the husband was working as a Conductor and had to remain on duty during odd hours. The conduct of the respondent added to his mental and physical fatigue. Husband and his family members tried to settle the matter with respondent and made efforts to bring her back but she did not agree. Respondent is also stated to have been awarded maintenance @ Rs. 1,000/- per month in her claim against husband under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. It was further alleged that the attitude of the respondent with husband and his family members remained quite hostile and indifferent. Respondent never cared for the husband and minor children.

3. Respondent contested the claim of the husband by denying all the allegations. In counter, she alleged that she was turned out from her matrimonial home by husband after seven years of marriage for the reason that the husband wanted to marry another lady and he in fact had married a lady, named, Lachhi and brought her home. Since, the respondent could not withstand such humiliation, she objected to the conduct of the husband and in result was turned out from the matrimonial home. It was further contended that respondent had to leave her matrimonial home alongwith minor children, who later were brought back by husband after about five years.

4. Learned Trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPP.

2. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner? OPP.

3. Relief.

5. Issues No. 1 and 2 were decided in negative and the petition was dismissed.

6. Husband has assailed the impugned judgment and decree, on the ground that it is result of misappreciation of the evidence. Husband had proved issue No. 1 by overwhelming evidence, which was ignored by learned Trial Court. As per husband, he had proved that the respondent had deserted him without their being any cause and despite efforts had not returned back.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

8. It is evident from the contents of petition filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Act that the allegations of cruelty were vague and general in nature. No specific instance constituting cruelty was pleaded. It was averred only that the attitude of respondent towards husband and his family members was hostile from the beginning of married life. She had been picking quarrels and leaving the matrimonial home. Nothing beyond has been either specifically pleaded or suggested.

9. The Hindu Marriage and Divorce (Himachal Pradesh) Rules 1982, framed by this Court specifically require the allegations of cruelty to be specified in the petition with sufficient particularity with time and place of the Act