Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The husband examined himself as P.W. 1 and has stated that after staying for about eleven days, the wife went to join her duties as F.S.I. Co. (P) Ltd., at Kendrapara and though he had on more than one occasion gone to bring her back, she refused to accompany him on the ground that he was impotent and unemployed. Some mediators were also sent for persuading her to join the matrimonial home, but she refused. A number of letters were also sent but to no avail. Reply received from the wife has been exhibited and marked 'X'. He has further stated that the wife has, in fact, deserted him and her refusal to resume matrimonial ties also amounted to cruelty as also desertion. In the cross-examination, he has stated that they had conjugal relationship only for a period of eleven days after the marriage and thereafter, they have not stayed together as husband and wife. He has reiterated that whenever he had gone to Kendrapara to persuade his wife to resume cohabitation, she had refused to do so on the ground that he was impotent and unemployed. He has admitted that in May and June, 1990 he had gone to Kendrapara to persuade his wife to resume cohabitation but to no avail. He has denied the suggestion that till November, 1991 they had stayed together and thereafter he had made no effort to bring her (the wife) back to the matrimonial home. He has also denied the suggestion that he had filed the petition for divorce as he was interested to enter into wedlock with another girl.

5. P.W. 2 - Bijoy Kumar Padhy, who stays in a house adjoining to that of the husband, states that after the marriage the husband and wife stayed together for about ten to eleven days whereafter she went away and has not returned to the matrimonial home, not even to attend the Sudhi ceremony of her father-in-law. It was suggested to him in the cross-examination that he is not a neighbour of the husband and in fact, stays at a distance of five miles from his house, but this has been denied.

6. The wife, respondent witness No. 1, admits that after her marriage she remained in the matrimonial home for about ten to twelve days and then she left for Kendrapara to re-join her duty as her leave was to expire. This, according to her, was with the consent of her husband. She further states that occasionally, her husband used to visit Kendrapara to meet her where she was serving; and that in August, 1989 she had gone to matrimonial home where she stayed for about twelve days and thereafter returned to Kendrapara on which occasion, the husband stayed over-night there at Kendrapara. She goes on to state that her father-in-law and husband had demanded Rs. 30,000/- for their family business and as the demand could not be fulfilled, her husband in October, 1991 left her at her parental home requiring her to arrange the money. She makes a reference to some portion of the letter (marked Ext. A) written by her husband in which there is some reference, according to her, regarding her divorce. She also states that as she had refused to handover her salary to her husband and could not meet the monetary demands made, difference crept up between her and her husband since October, 1991 and though some persons were sent to bring about a compromise, it could not materialise. After 1991, states the wife, neither the husband nor any other person from his side has ever approached her for resuming matrimonial ties. While admitting that she had commented that her husband was unemployed, she denies to have called him impotent. She further states that there was a proposal of marriage of her husband with another girl of his village. In the cross-examination, she admits that she had gone to the matrimonial home in August, 1989 and that thereafter she has never gone there nor was any attempt made to take her there. She also admits to have received the letter dated 27.9.1989 (marked Ext. A) from her husband and that in reply to the said letter of the husband who wanted to divorce her, she had stated that instead of going to Court, he may divorce her by mutual consent. The suggestion that there was no demand for dowry, is denied. She, however, admits that the matter was not reported to any authority. The suggestion that the misunderstanding did not arise in October, 1991 and that it started after she left the matrimonial home after few days of her marriage, is denied. The suggestions that the husband has never visited her at Kendrapara after 1989 and that there has been no resumption of conjugal relationship after she left for Kendrapara, have also been denied.

7. Dolagovinda Sahu - respondent witness No. 2, who was examined on the 20th of July, 1996, states that the parties were married about seven or eight months back in the month of Asadha during the Raja Festival and at that time cash, other Articles and a scooter were given to the groom by way of dowry. He also states that the wife was in service and after staying for a period of ten to fifteen days, she went to resume her duties with the permission of her husband. He further states that the husband was also a teacher in a private school at the time of his marriage and that he continued to be in service thereafter. It is also stated by him that the husband was using to visit Kendrapara and that the wife was also visiting the matrimonial house at times. He goes on to state that the wife had gone to her matrimonial home on leave when a demand for Rs. 30,000/- was made from the husband's side as the money was required for business. As the wife's father expressed his inability to meet the demand, the husband left the wife at her parents house and despite requests made by the wife's father and others, the husband did not agree for any reconciliation. In cross-examination, he admits that he is unable to name the office where the wife is serving nor can he give the address where she is residing, and states that on one occasion he had seen the husband and wife moving about in Kendrapara Bazar. He denies the suggestion that the husband and the wife are living apart after eleven days of their marriage, and states to have seen them staying together in the wife's house. The suggestion that he had never gone to the house of the plaintiff (the husband) and that the wife has, after leaving the matrimonial home, never gone to the matrimonial home to stay there, is denied.

14. The petition for divorce was also opposed on the ground that it was premature, for, according to the wife, the husband and the wife were meeting each other till 1991. It has also been stated by the wife that in September, 1991 her husband had gone to Kendrapara where he stayed overnight However, on a consideration of the other material on record, we are not inclined to accept the statement. It is no doubt true that on more than one occasion the husband had gone to Kendrapara and met the wife, but this was not persuade her to resume conjugal relationship with him by going to her matrimonial home. The fact of the husband going to the town where the wife is serving, with the intention of asking her to resume conjugal relationship with him and to return to her matrimonial home, cannot amount to wiping out the act of desertion of the wife. On the contrary the fact that inspite of the efforts made by the husband, the wife refused to discharge her marital obligations and failed to return to the marital home, would indicate that the wife was not interested in resuming matrimonial ties. This clearly indicates the wife's intention for abandonment of her spouse and further goes to show that the wife had no intention to join the matrimonial home. Therefore, the contention that the petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act was premature, stands rejected.