The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act, emphasizing the essential conditions and the obligation of the respondent to provide maintenance for the deserted wife and daughter under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is wife's appeal directed against the judgment and order dated 19.03.2020 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was held on 15.12.2013.

2. The divorce petition had been filed by the respondent husband on 6.3.2017 on the ground that the appellant, his wife, had left her matrimonial home on 10.1.2015 without any rhyme or reason, in his absence, alongwith her family members. At that point of time, the appellant wife was pregnant for two months. It was alleged in the divorce petition that while leaving her matrimonial home, the appellant took all her jewellery as also Rs.36,000/- in cash kept by the respondent in his safe. On 25.1.2015, the respondent went to bring the appellant back to his home when she refused to maintain any kind of relationship with him.

3. It was further contended that on 22.8.2015, the appellant had given birth to a girl child. She was admitted in the hospital by the respondent who had borne all expenses of birth of his daughter. The appellant wife went to her paternal home after birth of the child. After about eight to ten days, the respondent went to bring the appellant back to his home when she denied to meet him and did not allow him to even see his child. On 15.1.2017 the respondent again went alongwith his relative to bring the appellant to his home when she had denied to accompany him. It is, thus, stated in the divorce petition that the appellant was residing separately since 10.1.2015 and she has refused to keep relationship with the respondent.

4. The plea in the divorce petition, thus, is that the appellant wife had deserted her husband/respondent without any rhyme or reason and refused to cohabit with him. The cause of action for filing the divorce petition stated to have arisen on 10.1.2015 when appellant wife had left her matrimonial home along with her father and brother and lastly on 15.1.2017 when she refused to accompany the respondent to her matrimonial home. Another ground for seeking divorce is that the appellant had refused to do the household work and misbehaved with the family members of the respondent. She used to go to her paternal home or to her relatives without any information to the respondent or his family members.

5. The trial court had framed four issues; Issue nos. 1 and 2 framed by the trial court read as under :

6. In support of the averments in the divorce petition, the respondent husband had produced five witnesses including himself as P.W-1. P.W-2 Amit Kapoor is brother of the respondent; P.W-3 is father-in-law of P.W.-2 Amit Kapoor and P.W-4 is neighbour of the respondent; P.W-5 is an acquaintance. In rebuttal, appellant-wife entered in the witness box as O.P.W-1 and her father Atar Singh as O.P.W-2.

7. An application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the appellant on 6.9.2017 which was contested by the respondent by filing his objection on 26.2.2018. By the order dated 10.7.2018, while allowing the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month was awarded to the appellant and Rs.2000/- for her daughter towards monthly maintenance. In addition to the same, Rs.20,000/- in lumpsum was awarded towards the cost of the proceedings.

8. A written statement in rebuttal was filed by the appellant wife on 06.10.2018 wherein she had categorically denied the assertion that she had left her matrimonial home on 10.1.2015 rather it was stated therein that the appellant lived with the respondent, her husband, in his house uptil July, 2016. A child was born out of the wedlock on 22.8.2015 in Rashmi Goyal Hospital situated at Rampur Garden Bareilly. The appellant was admitted in the hospital by the respondent on 22.8.2015 who had signed the consent letter for the surgery. It is emphatically denied that the appellant had refused to have sexual relationship with the respondent. It was further s