Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The learned Advocate for the appellant strenuously urged before us Chat the learned Civil Judge was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the wife namely, the, present appellant deserted her husband without reasonable cause and against his wishes on 31-12-1970. He further argued that it was the husband who constructively deserted the wife in-asmuch as he treated her cruelly, neglected her and made her life intolerable. Hence he submitted that the learned Civil Judge was not justified in coming to the contrary conclusion. He further submitted that the learned Civil Judge ought to have dismissed the petition on account of the long delay which was not explained properly by the husband and the ,delay was unnecessary and improper, As against that the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent husband in Ibis appeal argued supporting the decree of the trial Court. The points therefore that arise for our consideration in this appeal are :-

(1) Whether the learned Civil Judge was justified in holding that there was no constructive desertion on the part of the husband?
(2) Whether the learned Civil Judge was justified in holding that the present appellant-wile deserted her husband without reasonable excuse and against the wishes of the husband and that the application was presented after more than two years of such desertion?
(3) Whether the petitioner-husband has not explained the delay and there is unnecessary and improper delay in presenting t1he petition and what order?

The Supreme Court of India explaining the including clause has stated that the Explanation contains what is known as constructive desertion. (vide ). We have therefore to see whether there is any substance in the averment made by the wife that her husband made her life intolerable so as to compel her to leave the marital home or in other words whether the husband is guilty of constructive desertion. Speaking on this aspect in her evidence, RW-1 has stated thus:

".............I cannot say how the petitioner was not making my life happy, or wound my feelings. After one hand half months after my marriage, petitioner was not properly looking after me. I had no difficulties with regard to the ordinary things of life from petitioner's house. The petitioner used to go to the lands come back for lunch and again go to the lands till the evening. I was being treated like a servant in their house for cooking and I have no other happiness. The petitioner never used to take me to conference and tell me where he was going whenever he went out and he never used to show any affection towards me. I had no other happiness from him for above reasons ..........."

13. It is in this context that we have to read the evidence of Appannaniaia, PW-2 He has stated:

"............... I also requested the respondent to return to her husband's house. She replied that she does not like the life of the village". Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, that appears to be probable and that might be the reason why she thought of leaving the marital home and to live in Bangalore. Even so the husband did not altogether forget her though there is no bounden duty on the party of the deserted spouse to persuade the other spouse to persuade the other spouse to join him. Through his brother in-law PW4 and through PW-2 he made efforts to see that his wife would return home. PW-2, as stated already, has deposed that he requested Rukmini to return to her husband but she replied that she would not come to the village and she did not like the village life. P-W-4 in his evidence has stated that in spite of his advice, she did not care to go and join her husband. He further stated that the respondent-wife requested him to get her a change by transfer to Mysore and she was telling him that she wanted to live independently in Mysore. She also regretted for having married the petitioner. P. W 4. Somesh is the Deputy Secretary to Government of Karnataka. Thus it is obvious of the wife deserted the husband by going away from his house within a few months after the marriage for staying in Bangalore. The unsuccessful efforts to persuade her to come back and for taking away all her articles make it clear that she had no intention to continue cohabitation. It is in these circumstances that the learned Civil Judge has come to the conclusion that the husband has proved desertion and the wife has failed to establish constructive desertion on the part of her husband. Since the wife went away as early as in the year 1972 to reside permanently elsewhere and since she did not come back to her husband at any time, it is obvious that the desertion has continued for more than two years prior to the institution of the petition. which was instituted on 19-9-1978.