Desertion for two years under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, can be established by acts of cruelty that cause mental agony to the aggrieved party, even in the absence of physical harm.

1. Balbir Kaur appellant was married to the respondent in March 1971. She claims that on the same day her doli was taken to the house of the respondent when about an hour thereafter she felt some pain in the abdomen. She was accompanied by her maternal uncle Hardial Singh A.W. 4, her brother Jagser Singh and Chhoti Nain when it was suggested to the respondent and his parents that she should be provided with some medical treatment. Their request was not acceded to. On the other hand, she was asked to leave the house which she did and reached her father s house in the evening. She put in a petition on 24-2-1977 for divorce under S.13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) on the ground that the respondent had deserted her for a continuous period of no less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition to divorce. These allegations were denied in the written statement filed by the respondent who averred therein that he was and continues to be willing to keep the petitioner (now appellant) in his house as his wife. He also set up the plea that the petitioner herself with-drew from his company without any reasonable and probable cause and that in 1976 he had to take out a warrant under S.97, Criminal Procedure Code, to get her recovered from illegal detention. On the pleas raised by the parties, the learned trial Judge framed the following issues :-

1. Whether the respondent had deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of more than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition ?

2.Whether petition is not properly presented and if so to what effect ? On issue No. 1 the learned trial Judge disbelieved the story put forth by the petitioner that she had to leave the house of the respondent after about an hour of her arrival there. He also held that since the respondent took steps to get the petitioner recovered by taking out a warrant under S.97, Criminal Procedure Code, he had been ready and willing to keep the petitioner in his own house, as his wife. On these findings, issue No. 1 was decided against the appellant. Issue No. 2 was not pressed and decided against the respondent. In view of the aforementioned findings, the learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the appellant.

2. In this appeal, I have gone through the evidence with the help of the learned counsel. In support of her case, the appellant appeared as PW 1 and stated that she was married to the respondent about six years prior to the date on which she appeared as a witness in the Court. On that very day, her doli was taken to the house of the respondent. There she got an attack of acute pain in the abdomen. Her brother Jagser Singh, her maternal uncle Hardial Singh A.W. 4 and Chhoti Nain had accompanied her. The respondent told them that she would not get any medical treatment and that they should take her away. She was brought back to her parental home under these circumstances. In cross-examination, she admitted that the marriage of her sister was solemnised one day prior to her marriage and she denied having remained ill prior to her marriage. She also stated that the respondent s father had taken a written Ex. A1 from her father to the effect that the relations between the parties had come to an end and that both the parties were at liberty to perform another marriage.

3. Atma Dass A.W. 2 is the father of the appellant. He has substantially corroborated her statement. He also denied the suggestion made to him in cross-examination that prior to her marriage the appellant had been suffering from some disease. Even though he stated that he got the appellant treated by Medical Practitioners yet he could not give the names of the Doctors who had prescribed medicines for her. He also deposed about the arrangement incorporated in Ex. A.1 whereby the parents of both the spouses had put an end to the relationship between the parties regardless of the fact whether that arrangement