JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant/husband under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) against the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2000 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Balaghat in Hindu Marriage Case No. 2-A/99, whereby his case filed under section 13 of the Act, has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are as under:-

(i) The marriage of appellant/husband with the respondent/wife was solemnized in the month of February, 1988 as per Hindu rites and customs at village Bagholi Tehsil-Baihar, District-Balaghat (M.P.). Out of their wedlock a male child, namely, Pawan Kumar was born in December, 1988 who continued to live with the appellant/husband. On 15.05.1991, their second child, namely, Ved Prakash was born, who continued to live with the respondent/wife since his birth.

(ii) Since 1991-92, the respondent/wife is living separately from her husband/appellant at her parental village Bagholi Tehsil-Baihar, DistrictBalaghat in an independent house.

(iii) On 30.04.1992, appellant/husband sent a notice to respondent/wife calling her to live together. After about 11 days from the said notice, she came back to the house of respondent/husband. However, without any reason or intimation, she left him again. Therefore, on 9.7.1992 another registered notice was sent by the appellant/husband to the respondent/wife. However, neither the said notice was replied nor did she come back to appellant/husband. On 5.8.1992, the respondent/wife lodged a report against the appellant/husband and his family members, at Police Station Paraswada, District-Balaghat alleging that she had been subjected to cruelty by the appellant/husband and her in-laws on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. In absence of any substance, the police did not register the case against anyone of them.

(iv) On 14.07.1995, the respondent/wife filed a Case No. 72/95, under section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the appellant/husband for grant of maintenance, before the Court of JMFC, who vide order dated 24.9.1998 directed the appellant/husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 200/- to respondent/wife and Rs. 150/- to his son,namely, Ved Prakash.

(v) On 5.7.1999, the respondent/wife filed a private complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C. for offence punishable under section 498 A and 494 of IPC which was registered as Case No. 129/2003. The same was dismissed by the concerned Court vide order dated 07.11.2008.

3. The case of the appellant/husband is that without any reasonable cause, his wife has deserted him since 1991-92. He further states that the respondent/wife tried to falsely implicate him and his parents, and with an oblique motive, she lodged a report at the Police Station so also filed a private complaint. According to the appellant/husband, in order to rope the appellant and his parents into a false criminal case, the respondent/wife jumped into the well whereas there was no marital relationship between them for more than 9 months before the birth of second child. Therefore, the appellant prayed for decree of divorce on the ground of adultery, cruelty and desertion under section 13(1)(i), 13(1) (i-a) and 13 (1) (i-b) of the Act respectively.

4. The respondents-wife’s case is that on account of perpetrated cruelty, she was compelled to live separately and, therefore, it cannot be said that the she had ever deserted the appellant without any reason. She alleged that no false case was registered against the appellant/husband. She further stated that when the grandmother of the appellant/husband died in the year 1992, she stayed with husband for few days, therefore, the birth of the second child is out of the same wedlock.

5. The learned trial Court framed the issues, recorded evidence of both the parties and after considering the material available before it, dismissed the petition.

6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/husband, however,