Allegation of desertion and cruelty not proved.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mrs. A. Subbulakshmy, J:

1. Unsuccessful petitioner, the wife who filed the petition for divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty is the appellant herein.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she married the respondent on 26.1.1975 according to Hindu ceremonies and customs and their marriage was also registered in the Hindu Marriage Register maintained by the Marriage Registrar and they lived together at T.Nagar, Madras and then they moved to Defence Colony, Nandambakkam, Madras, and a son was born to them on 20.3.1976. The petitioner contends that from 1975 to 1989 the petitioner and the respondent were living together and in the month of December, 1986 the respondent deserted the petitioner without any cause and consent of the petitioner and the respondent abandoned his duties and thereafter, the petitioner lived with her son in the Defence Colony, Nandambakkam and then she moved to Kasturiba Nagar, Adyar, Madras. The petitioner further contends that the conduct of the respondent is against the wish of the petitioner and there is no possibility of the respondent returning again to matrimonial home and the inhuman attitude and the oppressive conduct of the respondent, extracting heavy and unnecessary work by humiliating the petitioner amounts to cruelty and torture to the petitioner and the respondent is not evincing any interest towards the petitioner and the family. The petitioner further contends that the respondent was in the habit of taking non-vegetarian food and he forced the petitioner to cook and serve the same and thus caused great mental agony and thus the petitioner contends that she is entitled to seek for divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty.

3. Therespondent contends, that he only admitted his son at Rishi Valley, Madanapallee, a residential school and he is very much interested in the welfare of his son and the family and only the petitioner who was influenced by her widowed sister Visalam and her brother Radhakrishnan, began to neglect the interest in the family and a major portion of the income of the family was spent for her sister and brother and only the petitioner, her sister and brother created a situation and made impossible for the respondent to stay there and the petitioner only never cared the respondent and forced him to stay away from the house and inspite of her attitude the respondent is keeping touch with the petitioner and he also suggested for fixing a separate house without interference of the petitioners sister and others and only the petitioner did not listen to that and the petitioner moved to Adyar in 1989 without informing the respondent and the respondent never deserted the petitioner and the respondent has no intention to desert the family and the cruelty alleged is also a myth.

4. The petition was tried by the Family Court Judge and it was dismissed.

5. Aggrieved against that order, the present appeal is filed by the petitioner/appellant.

6. Point that arise for consideration in this appeal is whether the petitioner is entitled to divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent completely deserted the family viz., the appellant and her son and there is no possibility of the appellant living with the respondent and because the respondent deserted the appellant and did not attend to the needs of her son and as the appellant was also asked to prepare non-vegetarian food and the respondent did not participate in the household activities, the appellant was subjected to cruelty by the conduct of the respondent and on these grounds, decree for divorce has to be passed.

8. The appellant is now aged about 56 years and the respondent aged about 58 years. The appellant/petitioner who has been examined as P.W.1 has spoken in her evidence that the respondent left the matrimonial home in the month of December, 1986 and thereafter, he did not return at all and