The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person seeking divorce on the grounds of desertion must establish sufficient evidence of the deserted party's intent and actions, and vague allegations are not sufficient to support a decree of divorce.

JUDGMENT

M.M.S. Bedi, J. - The present appeal has been preferred by wife being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated March 30, 2017 allowing the petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act of the respondent-husband for dissolution of marriage.

2. The respondent had sought decree of divorce on the ground of desertion i.e. for not joining the company of the respondent. As per the averments in the petition for divorce, pleaded by respondent, he was married to the appellant on May 5, 2003 at Rohtak. A son Rohan was born out of the wedlock. The behaviour of the appellant as well as her family was never cordial towards the respondent and his family members since the inception of the marriage. The appellant did not mend her behaviour and continued with her noncooperative attitude and tried to humiliate the respondent in presence of his relatives and staff members. The appellant is working as Staff Nurse on contact basis whereas the respondent had joined Health Department in Government of Haryana. After the birth of child, the appellant started pressurizing the respondent to live separately from his parents near the residence of her parents. The respondent refused to accept the said condition as such the parents of the appellant started pressurizing the respondent to purchase a plot in Rohtak in the name of the appellant. The respondent gave a sum of Rs. 3 lacs to the appellant to purchase a plot but the plot was purchased in the name of mother of the appellant with ulterior motive. Thereafter the appellant and her parents demanded a sum of Rs. 10 lacs for raising construction of house on that plot. When the respondent could not fulfill the demand of the appellant, she left her company and started living with her parents without any reason. Panchayat was convened to persuade the appellant but she did not join the company of the respondent. The respondent was allotted a quarter in residential colony of Hospital at Kalanaur. The respondent requested the appellant to join him but she refused to do so. The respondent had noticed some outsiders frequently visiting the appellant. When the appellant was asked about the reason for roaming with those persons, the appellant threatened to involve the respondent in false case with dire consequences. The appellant had been living separately from the respondent since November 20l4 in adultery. On the basis of the above said grounds the respondent sought dissolution of his marriage with the appellant.

3. On notice having been received by the appellant she filed written statement alleging that a huge amount was spent by her parents on marriage and sufficient dowry articles were given to the respondent and his family members as per their demand but they were not satisfied with the dowry. They demanded cash amount in place of furniture as such a sum of Rs. 62000/- was deposited by the parents of the appellant in her name. After some time, the respondent and his family members started taunting the appellant for brining less dowry. After 15-20 days of the marriage, the appellant and the respondent had gone to Himachal on account of posting of the respondent. The mother-in-law of the respondent stayed with them. The respondent taunted the appellant at that occasion also. The respondent alleged that she was of short height but had been accepted only on account of the fact that she had passed staff nurse course. The respondent asked the appellant to withdraw sum of Rs. 62000/-. A sum of Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 5000/- was received by the appellant at the time of Muh Dikhai ceremony and the same was snatched by the respondent and his family members by saying that it was their money. The respondent had sent two boys in the room of the appellant. One of them was Lab Technician and the other was Radiographer while he himself was sitting in the park. The door was not opened by the appellant being a devoted Hindu lady. The respondent never provided house-hold goods to the appellant. The respondent never