By the Court.—Under challenge in this appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is the judgment and decree dated 30.5.2006 passed by Shri Ashok Kumar Saxena, Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur in Matrimonial Suit No. 73 of 1999, Dr. Om Prakash Pandey v. Smt Jayanti, whereby and whereunder the suit for divorce filed by Dr. Om Prakash Pandey under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘Act’) has been decreed.

2. Smt Jayanti, the appellant - wife and Dr. Om Prakash Pandey, the respondent-husband were married according to Hindu rites and customs on 23.6.1985. No issue was born from their wedlock. Since June 1993 the husband and wife are living separately. On 10.3.1999, after almost seven years after they started living separately, the respondent, a Reader in Deen Dayal Upadhyaya University, Gorakhpur filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty of the appellant.

3. According to the plaint allegations, from the beginning itself, the behaviour of the appellant was quite violent and rude. She would constantly be involved in fights with the members of the respondents family and would reply rudely to anything that the respondent would say to her. The appellant indulged in low level talks and used abusive language. The respondent continued to face the insult and the rude behaviour of the appellant in the hope that her behaviour would improve with the passage of time. Instead of improving, the appellant’s behaviour worsened over time. In order to maintain his societal respect and status, the respondent continued to bear with such behaviour of the appellant. The appellant not only continued to abuse the respondent, but also insulted him before the world. The respondent was living in a joint family and from the very beginning the appellant wanted the respondent to get separated from his family and have a separate residence. In 1993, without any rhyme or reason, the appellant packed her bags and went back to her paternal house with all her belongings and jewelry. Thereafter, the appellant did not return to the respondent’s house, despite continued attempts by the respondent to convince her to come back. It was pleaded that there had been a complete marital discord and total non-compatibility. It was alleged that the appellant had deserted the respondent for more than five years and during the said period there had been no marital or physical relationship between them. In the circumstances, it was alleged, there was no possibility of the appellant and the respondent to live as husband and wife. Alleging the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondent filed a petition for the dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

4. The appellant filed her written statement and refuted the allegations made in the petition. It was stated by the appellant that she was a noble and urbane lady of healthy mind. The allegation of being rude and abusive was categorically denied. The appellant denied having deserted the respondent. On the contrary, it was alleged that it was the respondent who had deserted the appellant. According to the appellant, it was the respondent who had left the appellant in her paternal house and was trying to take advantage of his own fault. It was alleged that the appellant had never been cruel to the respondent. On the contrary, it was the respondent who had been cruel to the appellant from the very beginning. The appellant, it was stated, was less educated and as such the respondent neglected her and treated her disdainfully but the appellant being an Indian woman, in order to maintain the dignity and reputation of her paternal and matrimonial house continued to tolerate the persecution of the respondent. The appellant specifically denied of having visited the appellant in the University or of having insulted him there. It was categorically stated by the appellant tha