Desertion as a ground for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the court's consideration of the welfare of the minor child in ordering maintenance payments.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal by the wife is directed against the judgment dated 10-04-2008 delivered by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonamura, West Tripura in T.S. (Divorce) 08 of 2006 whereby he allowed the petition of divorce filed by the husband and granted divorce to the husband on the ground of desertion and also directed the husband to pay monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 3,000/- as well as litigation costs. On 24-09-2013, none had appeared for the wife and we had dismissed the case in default. Thereafter, on an application being moved by learned counsel, the matter was restored and on 28-01-2014 it was directed that the matter be listed today. Today also none appears for the appellant. This matter was also heard in part on 16-09-2013. The matrimonial proceedings were started as far back as in the year 2006 and almost 8(eight) years have elapsed. Therefore, we proceed to decide the matter on merits after perusing the record and the judgment of the learned Court below.

2. From the material on record, it is obvious that the parties were married according to Hindu rites on 14-08-2001. The husband at the relevant time was working as Assistant Teacher in the Taibandal Higher Secondary School. The wife had a temporary job as a teacher at Ambedkar Girls Hostel, Agartala. According to the husband, it was agreed that the wife would give up the job and join her husband at Taibandal. This fact is disputed by the wife who stated that in fact, her husband had wanted her to continue the job and was waiting for her to be regularized in the job.

3. It appears that the troubles started soon after the marriage and the wife started residing at Agartala, not in her parental home but in a room which she had rented separately. She visited her husband off and on and out of this wedlock, a girl was born in the year 2002. The situation, however, did not improve and finally, the husband filed a petition for divorce in the year 2006. According to the husband, his wife had deserted him and was not willing to reside with him despite the fact that he was willing to look after her. He also alleged that his wife was treating him and his family members with cruelty; that the wife was not doing any housework and that she was abusive to the husband and her in laws. On the other hand, the stand of the wife was that she was always ready and willing to live like a wife in the matrimonial home, but she had virtually been thrown out from the matrimonial home by the husband.

4. Here it would be pertinent to mention that there are no allegations or counter allegations of physical beating by any side. This, in our opinion, is a case of a marriage having gone totally wrong. Admittedly, the marriage was an arranged marriage and as held by the learned trial Court, it appears that the wife and husband could not pull on together and the wife, therefore, decided to reside at Agartala. In case, the evidence of the husband and the witnesses produced by him are read together, the only allegation against the wife is that she left her matrimonial home to live at Agartala. The only other allegation which has been leveled against her is that at one of the ceremonies after the death of the father of the husband, the wife behaved in a highly irresponsible manner and when this was objected to by the husband, she abused him in presence of all the relatives. On the other hand, the stand of the wife is that she on learning about her father-in-law's death immediately came to the village and took part in all the ceremonies like any daughter-in-law. Her case is that she did not use any abusive language. The wife has not examined any witnesses other than herself.

5. As far as cruelty is concerned, we are of the considered view that the husband has failed to make out a case of cruelty. Even with regard to the incident which allegedly took place when the post death ceremonies of the father of the husband were being performed, the evidence is very vague that the wife