Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"I am taking divorce from my husband Harbir Singh according to my wish.

Raminder Kaur d/o S. Balwant Singh VPO Hayat Nagar District Gurdaspur"

As per the plea of the appellant, the respondent left this hand written note with him when she left the matrimonial home on 3.9.2001. It has come on record that on 3.9.2001 there was quarrel between the parties which led to the respondent leaving the matrimonial home. If the respondent in a fit of rage has given in writing to her husband that she intends to take divorce, the same is not sufficient to constitute her intent to seek divorce from her husband. In a petition for divorce, the petitioner has to specifically plead as well as prove that the petition for divorce is not the result of collusion, undue influence or fraud. The writing Ex. PX in no circumstances can constitute estoppel against the respondent to contest the claim of the appellant much less can it be treated as a consent of the respondent to get a decree of divorce from her husband. The appellant cannot take advantage of writing Ex. PX to prove his case. This apart, the appellant filed the petition for divorce in January, 2004. There is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant made any effort to bring the respondent back to the matrimonial home. As per the settled law, a party approaching the Court for a matrimonial relief cannot be allowed to take advantage of his/her own wrong, in view of the provisions of Section 23 of the HMA. The appellant in para 8 of the petition has clearly pleaded that it has become impossible for him to live in the company of the respondent any more who has given him cause of action to file the petition for divorce. On the contrary, the respondent in her pleadings as well as during course of evidence has asserted that she is always ready and willing to live with her husband. The appellant and the respondent appeared before this Court on 9.5.2013. During interaction with the parties, the respondent was candid enough to state that she is ready to resume cohabitation with her husband and is not willing to part ways. However, the appellant refused to accept the proposal given by the wife. Keeping in view the conduct of the parties during proceedings before the trial Court as well as in the appeal, the pleadings and the evidence on record, we find it difficult to accept the contention of the appellant that the respondent is guilty of deserting the appellant with an intention to snap marital ties. We find no error in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court that the respondent is neither guilty of cruelty nor of desertion.