Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. According to the husband, the wife has been guilty of desertion from June 2002. There was allegedly constructive desertion. They both were sharing the same roof but occupying different rooms from June to November, 2002. From 11.11.2002, there was actual separate residence also. According to the husband, these amount to desertion from June 2002 or at least from November 2002. He further alleged that during the period that they co-habited, the wife was guilty of matrimonial cruelty. She disregarded him. She did not obey him. She used to pick up quarrels with him. She used to threaten him that she will commit suicide. These acts according to him amount to cruelty of the contumacious variety.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned order on the following grounds:

1) The court below ought to have found that the wife was guilty of matrimonial cruelty of the objectionable variety and must have granted divorce on that ground.
(2) The court below ought to have held that from June 2002 to November 2002 and thereafter at any rate there was constructive desertion on the part of the wife.

10. As both the grounds are to be considered essentially on the basis of the oral evidence of PW.1 and RW1, we are satisfied that both grounds can be considered together. We have no hesitation to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the mere fact that the parties were residing together under the same roof is not a reason to conclude that there was no desertion. There can be constructive desertion even when the parties reside under the same roof. Similarly, there can be desertion even when one party by his/her attitude, conduct and behaviour compels the other party not to continue to reside with such contumacious party. On these aspects, we do not think it necessary to advert to precedents cited. The position of law appears to be too well settled and reference to any precedents is not warranted.