IMPORTANT POINTS
Desertion—Burden of proof—Burden of proof, is on the petitioner-husband to establish the animus deserendi and also the fact that the wife has no animus revertendi, to come back, and resume cohabitation.

Sham Sunder, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.9.1999 rendered by the Court of District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide which the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed by the husband-respondent, herein, was accepted and the marriage between the parties, was dissolved.

2. The facts, in brief, are that on 5.4.1995, the marriage between the parties, was solemnized. The parties cohabited, as husband, and wife at village Pundher District Hoshiarpur. No child was born, from this wed-lock. It was stated that, from the beginning the attitude of the appellant-wife, was hostile towards the parents of the respondent-husband. He is the only son of his parents, as his both sisters are married. In the first instance, the appellant-wife, stayed with him for about 20 days, and thereafter, he left for his place of posting. The appellant-wife then left the house of his parents, and went to the house of her parents. She had been insisting upon the respondent, to live separately from his parents, but he being the only son of his parents, could not oblige her. At times, when he used to come, on leave, from his place of posting, he used to bring the appellant-wife from her parents house. The sister and brother-in-law of the respondent-husband had gone to the house of the parents of the appellant to bring her back but to no avail. On one occasion, she stayed for one month, with his mother, in the absence of the respondent-husband, but her attitude remained the same. She was not taking meals, cooked by his mother. In September, 1995 the father of the appellant-wife came to the house of the parents of the respondent and took her with him. Thereafter, she did not come back to the house of the respondent. The respondent-husband, had also brought some money, for the construction of his house, and handed over the same, to the appellant-wife, but, on demand, she refused to give back the amount. It was further stated that the appellant-wife was torturing the respondent-husband and his parents. She was also instigating him, against his parents, and levelling false allegations, against them. Many Panchayats were convened to bring back the appellant-wife but to no avail. Ultimately, a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 amended up to date, was filed, by the respondent-husband, against the appellant-wife, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

3. The appellant-wife put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein she admitted the marriage, between the parties. It was also admitted that the parties cohabited as husband and wife. It was also admitted that no child was born, from this wedlock. It was denied that the appellant-wife ever asked the respondent-husband, to live separate from his parents. It was further stated that the husband and his parents levelled false allegations of unchastity against her. It was denied that any amount was given by her husband. It was also denied that she deserted the husband with an intention to put an end to the matrimonial ties. On the other hand, it was stated that she and her parents convened many Panchayats and asked the respondent-husband, to rehabilitate her in his house, but to no avail. She filed a complaint under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent and his parents which was pending in a Court at Dasuya. The remaining averments, were denied being wrong.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck:-

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

2. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner without sufficient cause for two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition? OPP.

3. Relief.”

5. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, came to the conclusion, that it was not proved that the wife ever treated the husband with cruelty. However, the trial Court, held that the wife