Divorce--Ex-parte Divorce--Divorce proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are not trial proceedings in a suit where, as per the Code of Civil Procedure, trial Court is bound to frame issues.

Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.:- Appellant Suman who suffered an ex-parte decree for dissolution of marriage in the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by her husband Karamjit has preferred the present appeal.

2. The respondent herein filed a petition invoking the provisions under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for dissolution of marriage with the respondent on the grounds of cruelty as well as desertion. He has contended in the petition that the marriage of the respondent herein with the appellant was solemnized on 14.3.1992. After staying with the respondent for 5 days, the appellant started taunting the respondent. She also abused the respondent. The appellant was quarrelsome from the very beginning. She used to pick up quarrel on petty matters. She pressurized the respondent to organize a separate establishment. Her treatment culminated in mental and physical cruelty to the respondent. The appellant stayed with the respondent for just 5 days and thereafter she left for her parental house. She abused the respondent that he was not a suitable match for her. She was brought again to the matrimonial house as per Panchayat decision, but her behaviour remained the same. She called her mother-inlaw ‘Budhiya’. She thereafter left the matrimonial house without any information. She started insulting the respondent herein even in the presence of his friends to the effect that he was not a suitable match for her. In spite of the efforts taken by the mother of the respondent, the appellant refused to come and live in the matrimonial home.

3. The appellant herein remained ex-parte before the trial Court after she filed written statement.

4. On the side of the respondent, the respondent was examined as PW1, his brother Amarjit as PW2 and his mother Munni Devi as PW3.

5. The trial Court having adverted to the unrebutted evidence adduced by the respondent, chose to grant a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty as well as desertion.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted referring to Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 that even if the appellant remained ex-parte, the trial Court is bound to grant the relief only after it is satisfied that the grounds alleged in the petition were established.

7. We went through the entire evidence on record. We find that PW1 has categorically deposed that he was not only insulted, but was humiliated in the presence of others that he was not a match for her. She had also misbehaved with the mother of the respondent herein who was examined as PW3. The witnesses on the side of the respondent herein have categorically deposed that the appellant was quarrelsome and treated the respondent herein and his mother Munni Devi cruelly. They have also deposed that the respondent and his mother suffered physical and mental cruelty at the hands of the appellant. Her abusive language also has been spoken to by PW1 to PW3.

8. We find that the above evidence went completely unchallenged by the appellant herein who remained ex-parte. In our considered view, the trial Court has rightly evaluated the evidence to satisfy itself as to whether the grounds of cruelty and desertion herein were established.

9. It was further submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that no issue as regards desertion was formulated by the trial Court, but a finding was given that the appellant also deserted the respondent herein.

10. In our considered view, the divorce proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are not trial proceedings in a suit where, as per the Code of Civil Procedure, the trial Court is bound to frame issues. Even otherwise, we find that the issue had been inadvertently formulated despite the fact that the respondent herein has set up specifically the grounds of cruelty and desertion in his petition and the appellant on her part had met those pleas set up by the respondent in her written statement. When the evidence on record would