Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. 'Desertion' is defined under Section 3(9) of the Indian Divorce Act which implies abandonment against the wish of the person charging it. Since it was the petitioner who left the matrimonial home and started residing separately, will it amount to desertion on the part of the respondent, is the question to be considered. On an appreciation of the judicial pronouncements on the subject, one can very well come to the conclusion that it is a case of constructive desertion. In the decision reported in Jyotish Chandra v. Meera Guha, AIR 1970 Calcutta 266, it is held that if one spouse is forced by the conduct of other to leave home, it may be that the spouse responsible for the driving out is guilty of desertion which means constructive desertion. This decision is basing on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Bipinchandra Jaisinghbai Shah v. Prabhavati, AIR 1957 SC 176, in which it is held that where the wife is forcibly turned out of her marital home by the husband, the husband is guilty of constructive desertion. The test is not who left the matrimonial home first. If one spouse by his words and conduct compels the other spouse to leave the marital home, the former would be guilty of desertion, though it is the latter who has physically separated from the other and has been made to leave the marital home.

15. In the decision reported in Reynold Rajamani v. Union of India, (1982) 2 SCC 474, it has been held by the Supreme Court that ground for divorce may be liberally construed. Such a view is also seen taken in the decision reported in Dastane v. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC 326, in which it is held that a decision in matrimonial cases should be taken on preponderance of probabilities and strict proof as in criminal cases is not necessary.

16. Going by the standard set up by the Supreme Court, I am convinced that it is a case where it is the respondent who deserted the petitioner and the case will come under the category of 'constructive desertion' as the petitioner was compelled to leave her marital home when it had become impossible for her to continue her residence with the respondent. The parties have no contact with each other for the last six years. The intention of the respondent is also tell tale as he did not enquire about the whereabouts or well being of the petitioner since 1992, though the Original Petition was filed only on 10.6.1997. From all these circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to get a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion as well.