Dr. Anusha vs Dr. Arjun on 31 August, 2017
In this context, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of (P. Premavathy vs. J. Venkatesan) passed in CMA No. 1045 of 2009 dated 20.02.2012 wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that heavy burden lies on the petitioner who seeks the relief of divorce on the ground of desertion to prove four essential conditions namely (i) factum of separation (ii) animus deserendi (iii) absence of any of her consent and (iv) absence of his or her conduct giving reasonable cause to desert the spouse to leave the matrimonial home. Relying upon the above decision, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the burden is on the respondent/husband to prove that the appellant has left his matrimonial company without any sufficient or justifiable cause. On the other hand, it was clearly pleaded and proved by the appellant that she left the matrimonial home only for deliverance of the child. Therefore, the question of desertion will not arise in the present case, especially when the two years statutory period for filing the petition for divorce did not lapse in this case. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the decree of divorce granted by the court below on the ground of desertion is legally not sustainable.