A spouse's refusal to return to the other spouse despite reasonable efforts to persuade them to do so may constitute wilful neglect and desertion.

( 1 ) IN this appeal by the wife, under the provisions of S. 28 of the Hindu Marrage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as to the Act), the question that needs to be decided is, whether the conduct of the wife, as brought out by evidence on record, amounts to 'wilful neglect' on her part, within the meaning of explanation appended to S. 13 (1) of the Act, so as to uphold the decree of divorce under S. 13 (1) (ib) of the Act?

( 2 ) PARTIES were married on 27-4-1983 at Raipur. Admittedly, they lived together after marriage at Raipur between 27-4-1983 to 196-1983. It is also not disputed that one Murlidhar, brother-in-law of the wife, took her back on 20-6-1983 to Katni for a brief stay with her parents.

( 3 ) THE case of the husband is that thereafter he made repeated approaches personally, through his relations and also by sending her letters requesting her to come back home, but she persistently expressed her inability to do so. In the course of these attempts to bring the wife back to home, on 29-11-1983, the husband himself went to Katni with his sister, Padma and brother-in-law, Arjundas to bring back the wife ceremoniously, according to the caste-custom. It is admitted that the husband and wife lived at Kanti and cohabited. During this brief stay of the husband, he requested the parents, of the wife to send his wife with him and his relations, who had gone to Katni to bring her, but the parents refused to send her and the wife also did not express any willingness to accompany him back, stating that she had no courage to act against the wishes of her parents. The husband made a second attempt through his uncle Ramesh Adwani, who was sent to persuade the parents of the wife and her to come back to the husband's house. But, again they refused. On 28-8-1984, the wife gave birth to a famale child named Varsha, now about three years old. The husband sent a letter on 14-9-1985 (Ex. P/1) to the wife requesting her to come back to him. The wife sent a reply dated 20-9-1985 (Ex. P/2) in which she expressed her desire to lead a happy married life with him, but again expressed her helplessness, because there was misunderstanding between the husband and her father. The husband sent one more letter on 28-9-l985 (Ex. P/10) and gave her an option that either she should remain at Katni in obedience to the wishes of her father or come back to him, for which, the husband showed his willingness to come up to Bilaspur Station to receive her there for return to Raipur. The wife, however, did not send any reply to the aforesaid letter. The husband then sent a legal notice addressed to the wife (Ex. P/4) calling upon her to return to him within a week of the receipt of the notice or else proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights or in the alternative judicial separation would be filed in the Court of law. He sent a separate legal notice dated 31-8-1986 (Ex. P/6) addressed to the father of the wife and alleged that his wife was being illegally withheld and detained for which the father was stated to be liable for compensation. The repeated attempts made by the husband having failed to persuade the wife to rejoin him, he filed petition under S. 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights and in the alternative, for grant of a decree of divorce under S. 13 of the Act.

( 4 ) IN her written statement filed in the petition, the wife took a plea that during stay with the husband, his mother used to make dowry demands and used to illtreat her. It is also pleaded by the wife that the husband, during the pendency of the case in the trial Court, has gone through a second marriage and, therefore, cannot get the relief either of restitution of conjugal rights or of divorce. The trial Court, by order under appeal dated 30-3-1990, held that the wife was guilty of desertion of the husband for a period of more than two years of the filing of the petition. The trial Court held that the remarriage of the husband was not proved. The trial