Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 702 (PNJ)

Lilu Ram v. Salochana

2001-07-18

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

body2001
JudgmentJudgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 8.8.1992 rendered by the Additional District Judge, Hissar, dismissing the appellants divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. Marriage between the parties took place on 3.4.1983. On 11.5.1990, the appellant-husband filed a petition for divorce alleging that the father of the respondent-wife as a greedy person and demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for sending her to the matrimonial home. It was further stated that on 28.8.1989, the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was granted in favour of the appellant and for one year thereafter, the respondent-wife failed to join the appellant-husband. The respondent-wife contested the petition and stated that after the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed, she came and resided with the appellant-husband but was turned out of the house. It was stated that the appellant-husband wanted dowry and not being satisfied in that regard, turned her out of the house. The Trial Court held that the plea of desertion raised by the appellant-husband was not substantiated and dismissed the divorce petition. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-husband has preferred this appeal. 3. After admission of the appeal, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 but finding that there was no possibility of compromise, the Lok Adalat had referred the matter back for decision on merits. 4. I have considered the matter. The Trial Court has rightly observed that the previous decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed, though the respondent-wife had made a statement that she was willing to live with the appellant-husband. After the said decree, the respondent-wife had gone to live with the appellant-husband on 28.8.1989 from the Court premises itself and lived with him for some time. Thus, the previous decree could be no ground for divorce by itself. To succeed in this petition, the appellant-husband had to independently show that the respondent-wife was voluntarily living separately and was not willing to resume cohabitation. The appellant-husband failed to lead any evidence to show that he was willing to keep the respondent-wife and that he had made any efforts to bring her to the matrimonial home. To succeed in this petition, the appellant-husband had to independently show that the respondent-wife was voluntarily living separately and was not willing to resume cohabitation. The appellant-husband failed to lead any evidence to show that he was willing to keep the respondent-wife and that he had made any efforts to bring her to the matrimonial home. I am in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of the Trial Court and I find that the appellant-husband has failed to prove the allegation of desertion, the burden of which was on him. Accordingly, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.