Cruelty and abandonment constitute valid grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, where neglect and long separation are treated as factors leading to irreversible breakdown of the marriage.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Taneja, J.

1. The present appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1955") lays challenge to the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2009 passed by the District Court, Dausa, whereby the Divorce Petition No.34/2005, filed by respondent - wife, seeking dissolution of the marriage solemnized between the parties, was allowed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent - wife entered into marriage with appellant-husband on 17.02.2001 and thereafter, when her marriage was not consummated, she filed a divorce petition on 03.08.2005 under Section 13 of the Act of 1955, alleging therein that on the third day of marriage, the appellant cast aspersions on her character; addressed her an adulteress and refused to accept her as his wife. It was further alleged that no marital and physical relations were ever established between the appellant and the respondent. It was stated that on the fifth day of marriage, the brother of respondent, as per prevalent customs and rituals, took her to her parental home where she disclosed the entire incidents to her family members. It was further stated that the family members of the respondent made efforts to persuade the appellant to live with the respondent and treat her with dignity; however such efforts remained unsuccessful as the appellant refused to do so and since then, she has been residing at her parental home. On the ground of cruelty and desertion, the respondent sought dissolution of marriage.

3. The appellant filed reply to the divorce petition in which he denied all the allegations. He refuted the allegation of casting aspersion on the character of respondent. It was also stated in the reply that he was willing to accept her as his wife whereas the respondent did not wish to live in the joint family and insisted on living separately, and that she was acting under the influence of her parents. The allegation of desertion was also denied, stating that the respondent had voluntarily left the matrimonial home, taking her jewellery with her. It was also stated that two sisters of the respondent were married to two brothers of the appellant and were living happily in their families.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues :-

5. Respondent examined herself as PW -1 and also produced two witnesses namely; Gulab Chand (PW-2) and Prabhu Dayal Gurjar (PW-3). On the other hand, the appellant examined himself as DW-1 and produced two witnesses namely; Kishan Lal Saini (DW-2) and Ghasi Ram (DW-3).

6. After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence, the Trial Court decided issue No.1 in favour of the respondent and against the appellant and passed the impugned judgment and decree allowing the petition for dissolution of marriage filed by the respondent. Hence, this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Trial Court, while allowing the divorce petition has erred in not appreciating the evidence in right perspective. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant never made any allegation regarding the character of respondent.

7.1 Learned counsel has also submitted that the respondent averred, in her application filed under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, that the appellant was under an obligation to maintain her but he failed to do so, which compelled her to file the divorce petition. It is argued that as per the said averment, if the appellant had maintained the respondent, there would have been no occasion for her to file the